jesus fucking christ

What a pig - to injure, bind and gag two little babies is beyond comprehension. I hope he is captured and gets to feel first hand how it is to be totally trapped and helpless when he is thrown into the big house. May the little girls find the loving, safe and stable home they deserve.

Men go to prison. Dogs should be put down.

Maybe he was practicing his knots for his next holdup?

Conveniently left out the "there's no word on the children's mother" part.

Left to their own devices men will always be more prone to commit all sorts of abuses, even to their own. That's why minors generally fare better in a house were the male and female equilibrium (exemplified by a mom and a dad in marriage) is observed.

None the less, it's still a tragic story and I hope 'his' ass lands on jail soon so that the other inmates can start taking care of 'him'.

@7: Um, LC? If you're convinced that if "left to his own devices" -- if you went on vacation, or a business trip, or visited a sick relative, or, you know, died or something -- your husband would beat, tie and gag, or otherwise abuse your children, then maybe you're with the wrong guy.

LC! Are you kidding? Men may be pigs, as Dan frequently points out, but we don't turn into werewolves or something when there isn't a woman about. That's misandry. That's straight up bigotry! Not that your bigotry wasn't clear before.

@8 I'm pointing to the reasonable number of men (especially those that come from broken families), where either a mother or a father figure was not present or frequently involved in their upbringing. Those men are most likely to act out unconsciously their psychological damage if a stable female companion that can provide balance to them is absent from the home.

But there are also men out there (tho fewer and fewer now) who were raised in strong homes where they were taught properly.

You mean, strong homes with strong discipline? With regular beatings and such? Yeah, they were properly taught to abuse their own children.

10, Lovechild, why do you insist on making stuff up?

Loveschild, please stop making things up just to support your own bigoted position. You lost the debate about whether or not same-sex households are fit to raise children in another thread because the evidence was against you, and yet now you've resurrected it in another thread, claiming "minors generally fare better in a house were the male and female equilibrium (exemplified by a mom and a dad in marriage) is observed".

At least you were honest enough this time to say they "generally fare better", because there are minors who fare pretty well in same-sex households--regardless of whether you choose to admit it.

@7 - Do you ever get tired of being so completely insane?

Here is the wonderful father; http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/144…

LC, abuse does have a tendency to get passed from parent to child, but raising children 'in a house where the male and female equilibrium (exemplified by a mom and a dad in marriage) is observed' does nothing to lower the rate of abuse. After all, because the overwhelming majority of marriages are heterosexual, the vast majority of abuse happens necessarily to the children of one man and one woman.

Oh, and remember that women can be abusive too, I've known women that have had no compunction about beating the shit out of their children. The belief that decent men are disappearing is absolutely absurd, and the belief that they all come from 'strong homes' is absurd as well. You are viewing men as loaded weapons and women as Madonnas. That is sexism.

By the way, I happen to be the product of one of those broken families you mention, with the father largely absent. Anyone that knows me can tell you I am one of the most well adjusted people they know, other than that tendency of mine to call a sexist homophobic bigot a bigot. No matter how I act though, the way I act has nothing to do with whether or not I have a 'stable female companion' and everything to do with me.

"None the less, it's still a tragic story and I hope 'his' ass lands on jail soon so that the other inmates can start taking care of 'him'"

Prison rape is not a joke, Loveschild @ 7. Yes, this is tragic and he is obviously either incredibly ill or evil, or some combination of both, and his children deserve justice... but wishing him to be raped by his fellow inmates is wrong.

I don't see why he ran, there was at least a 50% chance he would have survived the encounter with the police.

oh my god this made me cry.

@18- LC views the world through her born-again-Jesus-camp glasses, and believes that without the civilizing, feminine energy of woman, man is a violent beast just waiting to bust out and destroy everything around him, including his children. Don't forget all men in prison are rapists, too, without the woman.
That's why gay men are so threatening- no civilizing women to be found. Therefore, they can't possibly make good, loving, gentle fathers to a child. Although in the same breath, she tells us that homes without fathers, or abusive ones are likely to produce violent men. Sweeping generalizations without logic, compassion or empathy, only dogma.
Such is the twisted world of the born-again bible-thumper- a simple explanation for everything.

None the less, it's still a tragic story and I hope 'his' ass lands on jail soon so that the other inmates can start taking care of 'him'.

Aside from not understanding the need for quotation marks around "his" and "him" (is Loveschild suggesting that the man is not actually a man, which would undermine the argument that men are naturally inclined to commit crimes like this?) I find this to be a pretty striking statement from someone who's claimed she'd never wish any harm toward another person.

I guess your principles shift whenever it's convenient, eh Loveschild?

Despite what anti Christian bigots like @21 say, most religions that fall outside the realm of the Judeo-Christian tradition have based their beliefs around the holy union of the female and male energies which of course relates to us humans. For example many indians both here in North America and South America still hold on to these important ideas and blend it perfectly with other new. But the creation stories of the coming together of male (Father) and female (Mother) to produce new life into this world regardless of race is the same throughout the world regardless of ethnicity or creed.

Loveshild, you lost any claim to the moral high ground when you expressed your desire for a man to be raped (or worse) in prison. Also, don't use words like "bigot" unless you know what they mean. Here's the no.1 definition from the OED: "A religious hypocrite."

That pretty well describes you.

LC, again, you are showing how absolutely ignorant you are.

This isn't really the place to discuss gender in comparative mythology, but I'll take you up on it. First off, there are plenty of life-creation stories where the source of life is a male deity (think of all of the trickster stories of N. America where the male trickster creates humans from shit, or all of the plants from his guts), or think of the Greek tradition where female Gaia gives birth to Oranos without male assistance. Beyond that however, many cultures have the concept of a 'third gender' (you can guess what that means), and people of the 'third gender' are considered integral to the society. Big cultures, like the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains have this concept, as do many smaller cultures all over the planet.

Don't claim to know how all cultures work, LC, I don't, but I can show you plenty of examples that, even if they acknowledge some kind of divine male and female principle, are open to things other than your bigoted heteronormative perspective. Or I suppose it isn't really heteronormative as you see men as animals and women saints, but it is bigoted.

Tolerate, is what many cultures have done when it comes to what presently is referred in the west as transgender behavior. And that is not the same as placing homosexual behavior and certainly not the same as placing homosexuality on par equally with the life giving forces that they have identified as coming only thru the sacred union of the female and male energies.

Again, many cultures have been tolerant of what we today refer as transgender peoples and hermaphrodites (a physical condition) which clearly took on gender specific roles. The construct of homosexual behavior today observed mainly in the west and by ethnic westerners in particular is something that those same non western cultures would and have frowned upon because they clearly see it as flawed and destructive for them in the long run.

Furthermore, none of the cultural and religious traditions that samktg @25 has cited have embraced homosexual behavior, much less something as alien and contradictory to the human condition (and to life itself) as gay marriage.

If that had been the case for example amongst the native nations withing the U.S, gay marriage would have already been implemented in at least a couple of them. But that hasn't happened because they clearly do not share that view about homosexual behavior, and in fact see it as totally foreign and without purpose for their survival as a people. Only one minuscule tribe (on the way to extinction already) to my knowledge has somewhat adopted the gay marriage western construct within their tribe and that tribe ethnically clearly no longer resembles their ancestors.

Loveschild, you sound like you're attempting to argue from a biological perspective again even though you still clearly don't understand it well enough to know how thoroughly your argument that homosexuality is "alien" to "life itself" has been refuted. Not all organisms within any population reproduce but those that don't can still have value to the overall population. Your talk about reproduction, though, sound suspiciously like an argument for forcing everyone into loveless marriages solely for the purpose of creating offspring.

Tolerate, is what many cultures have done when it comes to what presently is referred in the west as transgender behavior.

I'm surprised to hear you say that because you seem to be opposed to tolerance. Others have cited examples of homosexuality in cultures other than the west, by the way. Perhaps you should read those before you dismiss the "construct of homosexuality" as a solely western idea.

Even if it is, though, I don't know that that's enough to dismiss it. After all, democracy has its origins in western culture.

Loveschild, you're making a biological argument again even though you clearly still don't understand it. Here it is in a nutshell: not every member of a given population reproduces. The members that don't reproduce, though, can still have value to the overall population. Your biological argument sounds as though you're in favor of forced marriage solely for the purpose of creating offspring.

The construct of homosexual behavior today observed mainly in the west and by ethnic westerners

Others have cited examples of non-western cultures that have accepted homosexuality, so it's not entirely a western "construct". Even if it is, though, that's not a reason to be intolerant of homosexuality. Democracy, for example, is also a western "construct".

Sorry for the double-posting/rephrasing.

Indeed most of them have not embraced homosexuality, but they do reject simple male/female dichotomies which you, LC are so fond of. You seem particularly familiar with Native American cultures, so you should know that in many places it has not been uncommon for gay men to be selected as religious leaders. My point in highlighting these cultures is not to say that they are somehow better than our culture at being tolerant (often they aren't), but to show that things are far more complex than the gendered pair-opposite universe you believe you live in. Sexuality is far more fluid than just male/female. Homosexuality is natural. Gays are people and have just as much a right to marry and raise children as straights. Take your cherry-picked spirituality out of it and see we are all humans deserving of equal rights.

Not all organisms within any population reproduce but those that don't can still have value to the overall population.

True. There have been many people that have lived outstanding exemplary celibate lives with the aid of faith, there have also been many that have never recovered from infertility but have lived productive lives thru being role models to others in society. The essence lies in the way that they conducted themselves and the choices they made. Those people did not seek to reinvent and destroyed the societies they were in by promoting psychological flaws just because they were unable or unwilling to participate fully in certain institutions, no, they opted instead to contribute in those aspects that they were best suited to.

@32: So explain to me how two men who are very much in love and adopt and lovingly raise children who are unwanted by their biological parents would not be living in a way that is productive to society. They're atheists, by the way, but still teach their kids such transcendent moral values as "be nice to people", "don't steal", and "justice, justice shall you pursue". They are also legally married. Tell me how they're bad for society.

@31

in many places it has not been uncommon for gay men to be selected as religious leaders.

Transgender people or what are referred to vaguely (tho not in the same terms as in western culture) in some nations as people of a third gender have held such places within certain nations (not all of them). I remind you that some indian nations both here and in the First nations abhor even such expressions. But yes some have. And they serve a specific social role within the gender that has been assigned to them in accordance and based on what the tribe has collectively observed on that specific individual. That however is not the same as clearly understood male to male and female to female unions (homosexuality), that is seldom acknowledged much less revered or religiously sanctioned as you have alluded to.

I remind you that even the cases in which marriages were observed they always were done so within a female and male perception even if one of the parties involved was not physically of the opposite sex.

even if one of the parties involved was not physically of the opposite sex outwardly they were.

Reinvent societies? You mean the way giving women the right to vote reinvented our society? Or ending slavery in the South reinvented our society?

Promoting psychological flaws? What? Since when was homosexuality a psychological flaw?

Marriage isn't just for creating babies. Plenty of heterosexual married couples never have children simply because they don't wish to. How is giving gays the right to marry going to destroy our society? How is giving partners who are committed to each other as if married, the right to actually marry and accrue all of the benefits our government gives married couples going to destroy our society?

The beliefs you so insistently profess, LC, are homophobic, misandrist, misogynistic, and generally bigoted.

@33 Tho they might be providing some positive aspects the overall message that they are sending especially to those minors can create some problems for them further ahead. Because at it's core homosexual conduct (which is what the minors are witnessing in some form or another) lacks the moral essence of nature, in other words, it seeks to go above what's natural in other to pursue selfish and in many cases narcissistic interests. In that way those minors are also being left vulnerable to false premises which may let them more susceptible to unfortunate situations after childhood.

LC, there is no 'moral essence of nature'. Unlike the 'construct of homosexuality', morals really are a construct. You are fond of arguments drawn from nature. If nature has some kind of rule against homosexuality, that our human constructs keep breaking, why is it that all sorts of birds, mammals, lizards and insects, who have no human constructs, display homosexual behaviors?

The message married two men transmit to their adopted son is that it is okay to be gay. And the only thing that leaves a child vulnerable to is bigotry from people like you LC. Hopefully the child will be able to recognize that it is only bigotry, not internalize it, and carry on, the same way millions of people subjected to other types of bigotry do.

@36 As a woman who has a more personal connection with Black history in this nation than you probably do I completely reject the first two false comparisons you made there.

Marriage is a vehicle thru which our society solidifies stronger families which are after all the basic building blocks for all nations. New generations come thru conceptions take place by way of the fusion of men with women unions, not men with men, or women with women. And it is those (the former: male with female) that when provided with the proper tools both socially and spiritually are best suited to raise those same future generations which they engendered, into adulthood in order to be able to pass unto them their values so that the young are able to emulate them better.

So it isn't just about creating babies as you said but also about raising, instructing and the passing on to them important traits that are spiritually and philosophically essential to life and it's continuity.

Loveschild, as I said previously, you lost "the moral essence" when you said,

I hope 'his' ass lands on jail soon so that the other inmates can start taking care of 'him'.

While I don't condone his actions, I would never consider rape an acceptable punishment. I would certainly never consider it morally acceptable to wish it upon another person.

As samktq has pointed out, homosexuality occurs in nature. Your biological argument has failed, and I don't see how you can talk about a moral standard for others when you can't hold yourself to one.

@38

why is it that all sorts of birds, mammals, lizards and insects, who have no human constructs, display homosexual behaviors?

We as humans are intellectually and spiritually superior to animals. I would never compare you to a lower being because I'm sure you know better than going about practicing cannibalism with your young or throwing your bodily wastes where ever you were at the moment you needed to go or any other of the things that animals can do without giving much thought to it. That's not how we humans operate.

We as humans are intellectually and spiritually superior to animals.

Thank you for demonstrating once again that you know nothing about biology. What exactly demonstrates our intellectual superiority to animals? Self-awareness? The use of tools? The fact that we mourn our dead?

As for "spiritually" superior, now you're bringing religion into it. Is your opposition to homosexuality based on biology or religion?

LC, as a man far more personally connected to Black history in this nation than you imagine, I reserve the right to make that comparison. As a human who feels deeply that all humans deserve equal rights, I reserve the right to make that comparison. Sexual orientation does not dictate how good at parenting a parent is. A lot of heterosexual couples are absolute shit at it after all. There is no reason why a pair of married women, or a pair of married men are implicitly incapable of raising a child and instilling them with the values necessary for having healthy productive live for themselves and the greater community.

And thank you Southern Gentleman for reminding us LC has long lost any moral high ground, I think you might concur in saying LC does not know shit from shinola.

@40 Sorry Southern, but the only one who is apparently lacking morality here by taking issue with that is you. I make no apology whatsoever for wanting a monster (who harmed two minors) in jail and to be taken care of properly to such an extent were 'he' is unable to function properly physically and mentally and is therefor not capable of layin a finger on another innocent anymore. I've got no sympathy whatsover for those who harm kids, none.

So join Kim in feeling empathy for pedophiles and abusers of children like that one in that tragic story if you must. I only feel emphaty for those who cannot defend themselves (the kids) and I will support anyone and all methods that seek to keep them out of harms way.

Loveschild, your unwillingness to make any apology demonstrates how morally bankrupt you are. I don't feel sympathy toward anyone who harms children, but I don't believe in vigilante justice either. If you think taking an eye for an eye is justice maybe you should read your Bible instead of beating others with it, although, obviously, your faith is only there to be a convenient fall-back when your other arguments fail.

samtkq, I don't thank people here for enlightening me or making me laugh as often as I should, but thank you for a huge laugh. I try to be aware of my own ignorance, but, in these debates, Loveschild has only demonstrated her own ignorance and how ill-conceived her arguments are. So far she has failed to give me any reason to change my opinions. In fact she's strengthened them by providing an example of how destructive intolerance can be.

Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance. GTFO Loveschild.

@45

"I don't feel sympathy toward anyone who harms children"

boy you have certainly fooled me because that's precisely what you come off as.

Those who argue and seem to care more about the welfare or what happens to child abusers than they do about the children clearly have their priorities all mixed up.

Likewise Southern, the more I read your comments the more sure I am of the importance and urgency in securing the family and out weathering' out the destructive ideologies that you embrace. Because in the end if people like me stand firm we and our children will remain while your ideas will be left in the waste of time along with all those that sought the temporary, the passions, carnality, and mocked those that sought what was life affirming.

We will prevail Southern no matter how much you think that what you believe is what's in, it's just something that will not bear fruit because it simply can't, it never has and it never will.

Just like the apple of Sodom (an actual testament to what was once that city) from afar it seems appealing for a moment. But once on the hands it crumbles and what's left of it is bitter and cannot sustain human life.

Wow! I like how Loveschild claims you speaks for every African American, every indigenous, native, or First Nation person, and every religious person on this thread.

Ah, such grandiloquence. What lofty speech. You're a real Holy Warrior LC. Have you joined Repent Amarillo yet? Shouldn't you be off with them fighting the evil swingers, demonic based concert-goers, and Halloween? Why are you here arguing with us poor damned liberal souls, consigned to forever eat of the apple of Sodom? Maybe you think your lofty rhetoric will win over people in the middle. Well until you get your facts straight, and stop condoning things like prison rape, I don't think you'll save a single soul.

Wow, LC, how lofty, grandiloquent. You are truly a Holy Warrior. Certainly every liberal on this blog is damned and cosigned to eat of the apple of Sodom for all eternity. Have you joined Repent Amarillo or a similar organization yet? I'm certain you'll be able to do more for your cause, fighting the evil swingers, demonic concert goers, and Halloween. Your certainly not going to save the souls of anyone here who might be on the fence (the only conceivable reason you are here arguing with people who will never agree with you, and are in fact strengthened in their convictions seeing your comments), not with your bigoted rhetoric, lack of correct information, and approval of prison rape.

Oh .... Loveschild dear. Not advocating rape, is just that, not advocating rape. Rape is morally wrong. That you advocate it or joke about it, and this isn't the first thread, is appalling and shameful.

No worries, we all know when you start bringing me into your arguments it means you've lost your edge. All you can do now is fling garbage. Why I ever thought I could friend you, and some others here, I'll never know ... all you guys ever seem to bring is sorrow. I've had enough sorrow for now. I'll pay you the compliment of being blunt ... your attitude sucks it reflects a rather small fearful heart with little integrity and humanity. And, it is sad.

Sorry for the double post. There was some kind of error where the last one didn't post until I re-wrote and posted again.

That's okay, samktq. We've all made the same mistake.

Loveschild, Kim has already said it even better than I could, but I'll repeat it for emphasis: not advocating rape is just that. The fact that you consider torture acceptable, and the fact that you consider sex to be an acceptable instrument of torture, added to the fact that you apparently take pleasure in another person's suffering, reveals just how warped your mindset is.

As I said previously, try reading that Bible of yours instead of hitting people with it.

@53 The only unacceptable thing to me is for a child abuser to be free in society. Sorry but I'm not as unconcerned as you are about the harm done to minors by them, I think they need to face harsh and definitive punishment that renders them unable to repeat their offenses against other children. I'm not willing to put the life of a pedophile before those of children, you are.

I don't want to offend kim because I don't believe she's really a bad person at heart, but she has not only expressed empathy for "goldstar pedophiles " (dan's words), but also encouragement for a certain male poster on Slog that apparently deals with the same behavior. That's completely unacceptable to me and to most persons of sound mind in society.

So if placing more importance and care to the lives and welfare of children rather than those of child abusers makes me a lesser person than you (because you care more about what might happen to a monster in prison), then so be it. You may be in the majority here but in the real world more people side with me on this.

Loveschild, please stop making assumptions about me or ascribing ideas to me that I've never expressed. I have never indicated that I am "unconcerned" about those who harm minors--or anyone else. There is no reason for you to project that belief on to me. I believe the man belongs in prison. Is that clear enough for you?

Also, please stop insisting that you're "placing more importance and care to the lives and welfare of children rather than those of child abusers". That is not the issue, and if you'd take the time to read the arguments here you'd understand that.

The issue is that you want the man to be raped. You have said so. I don't believe anyone should be subjected to such treatment, regardless of what they've done. You find rape and torture morally acceptable. I don't.

LC, of course the welfare of the children come first, but you don't assure that welfare by punishing people with the same monstrosity they have perpetrated. You are promoting the sexual abuse/torture of a human being, a monster, but a human monster. As a society we condemn such action, and avoid sinking to the level of barbarousness of the imprisoned criminal (well theoretically, in the Western world we have one of the worst prison systems, and we still have lovely things like capital punishment). How would Jesus torture, LC?

And, oy vei, condemning someone for empathizing with someone who has been dealt The Worst Hand by fate? Since when was thought crime an evil, especially when it has been cruelly hardwired into an individual by indifferent nature? I'm not saying you should let a 'goldstar pedophile' watch your kids, or that you should befriend them (I certainly wouldn't do either), but at least remember they are humans, and deserving of sympathy for the impossible burden they have been saddled with.

What's most frustrating here is that I think we're all in agreement that the welfare of children must come first. I'd never allow a "gold star pedophile" near children either, although part of the point of the "gold star" was that it was applied to a person who thought they might be a pedophile and was trying to avoid situations where they'd act on their behavior. An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure, but our justice system doesn't charge people based on what they might do, except in cases where clear intent can be established.

I feel a need to clarify that I consider the welfare and protection of children to be of prime importance because, apparently, some believe that what I don't say can and will be used against me.

@57 "LC, of course the welfare of the children come first, but you don't assure that welfare by punishing people with the same monstrosity they have perpetrated."

Agree, that's why I think they need to be kept separate from society in order to avoid the potential for harm that they can cause. There have been just too many cases where the laxed attitude afforded to them has ruined countless of innocent young lives. And for the record if you read carefully I never made mention to prison rape (tho I could care less) what I meant was the other inmates taking matters into their own hands as they usually do when they know of someone who has harmed an elderly or a minor. You know there's even a boundary that even gang members and criminals are not willing to cross and will not tolerate others crossing.

"And, oy vei, condemning someone for empathizing with someone who has been dealt The Worst Hand by fate? Since when was thought crime an evil, especially when it has been cruelly hardwired into an individual by indifferent nature?"

I don't believe that pedophiles are poor creatures that have been "dealt" with anything, cause it's not a natural behavior. Those who entertain those sick ideas know that they're entertaining at whatever level they do so criminal and destructive behavior not only for them but for their innocent victims. Child abuse is not condoned by any religious belief to my knowledge, certainly not Christianity, because in Christianity the well being of children is one of the most important principles.

So lets just agree that none of us want children to be harmed by those monsters. Cause the thought of some feeling any kind of empathy for the worst of all heinous offenses (because I can't think of another better word to describe it) is just too revolting for me this early in the morning.

Loveschild, you shouldn't be lecturing anyone else about reading carefully, but I do agree that in your initial comment you didn't actually call for someone's rape. You simply made it clear later on that you had no problem with someone being raped.

I think they need to be kept separate from society in order to avoid the potential for harm that they can cause.

And, as I said, our justice system isn't designed to deal with the potential harm someone can cause. Or do you have some fail-safe method profiling method that will catch all those who would harm children before they act? If you do I think you owe it to the world to share it.

Thought crime is not a heinous offense. Every human being is guilty of at least a few thought crimes, but they are not criminals until they act upon their thought crimes. And shockingly, pedophilia does have at least some religious backing in places like, oh, the Vatican City where the age of consent is 12, not that that makes it right of course. I digress. I see little difference in empathizing with a 'goldstar pedophile' from empathizing with a recovering alcoholic. Both are burdened with egregiously harmful urges, and both have the commendable power to restrain them (though it isn't wise to tempt fate by letting the former watch kids or take the latter to a bar).

Whether or not you were referring to prison rape or not (and the way you simply went along with everyone's assumption that that is what you were talking about, strongly suggests prison rape was indeed what you were talking about), it is not the role of inmates to punish fellow inmates, but of the law. Though you espouse to agree with my belief that it isn't society's role to stoop to the level of its criminals, you clearly are missing the implicitly included idea that it isn't society's role to allow its incarcerated criminals to exact vigilante justice.

LC,

First let's stop the crap and lies. Okay? There are numerous threads where you advocate prison rape, just as there is a thread where you advocate forced castration. Despite your hiding your activity, the archives hold those lovely "pearls" of yours. Secondly, that same archives holds numerous examples of your dislike of me, and your need to inform me of what a bad person you think I am. Just as your passive aggressive refusal to capitalize the names of individuals and countries you disagree with betrays you. You can hide, but the rest of us are not stupid and most of us have fabulous memories.

Do you understand the definition of compassion? Or what it means when your Bible tells you that Jesus had compassion, was moved with compassion? Do you think his compassion was selective? Did he go through the crowds saying, "Not you!" to any one person? The ability to have empathy and compassion, and treat one's neighbor as yourself, is a hallmark of Jesus and his true followers. Does being compassionate towards another person mean you roll over and put individuals at risk, yourself and others (that includes minors)? NO! It does mean that you encourage them to continue getting treatment, continue to avoid putting themselves in situations which put others in danger. That is acting Christ-like. By the way, the individual you likely think outed himself as a "pedophile" doesn't struggle with that, but you were to busy clutching your pearls to comprehend anything. But, selective understanding is your trademark here. Isn't it?

So who is acting like a monster here? The father who tortured his girls? Yes. The person who advocates torture and rape? Yes.

Yes, we see you for who you really are and what you really stand for. That you are not above advocating sub-Christ behavior and then attempting to justify yourself for advocating it.

Next time, keep me out of your argument. Am I clear?

@60 I think it's safe to say that most of those in Vatican City are adults that are supposed to be following a celibate life. So I don't know why they need to have an age of consent to begin with, but I agree it disgusting and they should not be cut some slack from the rest of the religious community until they publicly reject that nonsense, even more so in light of all the atrocities that have been rightly exposed. If a priest commits an aggression against a minor then he needs to pay for it here on Earth and harshly, I make absolutely no excuses for them. A lowlife is a lowlife.

Eh. Further proof that the vast majority of parents shouldn't be allowed to care for algae, much less a child. You must have a license and training to own a handgun or drive a car, but any male capable of depositing sperm inside of any woman's vagina can cause the two of them to be parents without any background check or verification of the most basic knowledge of parenting. Just because you can make a baby doesn't mean you should.

Loveschild, what is your basis for determining whether someone's a good person or not? I'm just curious because, while I can understand calling someone a "lowlife" or worse based on their actions (I've done it myself) I get the impression you consider me a bad person even though your only reason for thinking that is the fact that I disagree with you on some issues.

I find your arguments inconsistent, and you sometimes speak as though your opinions are facts. I don't think that makes you a bad person because, honestly, I don't know enough to say whether you are or not. Why do you think I'm a bad person?

Southern Gentleman, you and I and most everyone that frequents this corner of the internet are bad people in Loveschild's eyes because we do not share her homophobic, misogynistic, misandrist, pro-torture, intolerant, generally bigoted views.

Southern Gentleman,

If i were you i'd be really concerned if LC considered me a nice, decent and good person. See, in her parallel universe it's the other way around - you are a "good man" if you hate gays, vote for the laws that will result in killing women in back alley abortions, torture, force religious views on others and generally are what we here on Earth consider a scum.

So take her words about you being "bad" as a compliment. You doing just fine.

" most persons of sound mind in society"

So what are you really like to say about me, LC? I'll take it as a compliment, because it means I'm not like you.

Still, who shows up on a blog that offends them on a near daily basis? Who shows up on threads that horrify them and repulse them on a regular basis? Who shows up on threads about gay sex that offends them? Who advocated prison rape and forced castration? Who advocates wrongful imprisonment and death in the name of national sovereignty? Who believes that she speaks for every woman, African American, First Nation/indigenous/native person, or religious person, and that her opinions are actually facts?

Put down your stones, dear, you live in a glass house.

Samtq, I was trying to give Loveschild some benefit of the doubt. After all, I think our opinions only tell part of the story about who we are. What I don't understand, though, is why Loveschild believes Kim has "a good heart" but doesn't believe that I do. Clearly disagreeing isn't always enough to make Loveschild completely hate someone.

And, just to be clear, based on the small evidence I have I'm also inclined to think that Kim is a good person. I'm inclined to think the same of you. But then I try to assume everyone is a good person until they give me reason to think otherwise.

Alinka, thank you so much for saying I'm doing just fine. Becoming a better person is an ongoing process, but I hope I'm making progress. As my name suggests I'm from a part of the U.S. with a very troubled history, but I've worked with others to make it history--and to, hopefully, make the present better. I'd like to see prejudice put behind us, which is why it upsets me so much when Loveschild argues in favor of continuing it.

Southern Gentleman,

I advise you to not worry about it. My own activity shows the number of times that I have responded to accusations against my character, as do the activities of other SLOGgers, your just fairly new here. Sometimes typed words are empty and you have to look at the overall actions of your history with an individual to see them and ascertain their belief about you. Sometimes an insult come wrapped with a backhanded compliment to 'protect' the overall impression of an individual. Time always reveals the truth in the end. Just my $0.02. Best wishes.

Ditto to what Kim said, SG.

Dont worry. There is enough evidence to believe that LC is a team project, or a person with multiple personalities. She contradicts herself most often, and many people caught her on saying mutually exclusive things.

Even when she does compliment Kim of her "good heart" it's not even sincere, but,as southern saying has it"----,bless her little heart". :)(presuming i got it right, i am not american born) So it's not really a compliment, but rather a clearly disguised offence.

And kudos to you for trying to do your best, truly! You are among people who will help restore the image of the South - that its not just bigoted and racist Southern Baptists, but honest to God folks.