NationStates Jolt Archive

So why are you constantly harping on about whores? These whores of which you speak are God's puppets. Who are you to castigate them for carrying out the tasks that have been ordained for them by God?


Yes, Yes, Yes. God made them to be hated, loathed, and rejected. He made them for the sole purpose of the Elect hating and rejecting them, of them hating and persecuting the Elect, and then of their being damned into hell forever, so the Elect can mock them and be avenged.


Romans 9:22-23 (New International Version)
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–

Do you deny that man folks in those days (as many are today) were possessed by demons?

Okay - I'll explain it to you.

1) I said that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of Messiah.

2) I showed (some of) the (many) requirements of Messiah that Jesus did not fulfill.

3) You declared that you can't rely on those old Hebrew prophets, because they were most likely possessed by demons.


Okay - here's where it get's tricky:

4) If the Hebrew prophets are possessed by demons, then you cannot believe ANY of their prophecy.

5) If you cannot trust Hebrew prophecy, there IS NO SUCH THING as Messiah, since 'messiah' is ONLY defined by Hebrew prophecies.

Thus, by your own admission:

6) There can be no Messiah - not even Jesus... because the prophecies are demonic.

OR, alternatively - if you assume that the Hebrews were NOT demon-led:

7) There CAN be a Messiah... but Jesus isn't it, because he fails to match the prophecies.

"No wonder your mother beat you with a board" is an ad hominem attack.

Yes it was, but the point it was making, in the context of the rest of my post, was not an ad hominem point.

Still, I hereby retract my statement as detailed above.

1611 King James is the perfect translation, also the 1599 Geneva Bible is perfect as well.

both perfect yet different?

So is each perfect in its own way, or what?

1611 King James is the perfect translation, also the 1599 Geneva Bible is perfect as well.

On the contrary, both contain tranlation errors, and copyist mistakes.

Therefore, NEITHER can be 'perfect'.

Okay - I'll explain it to you.

1) I said that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of Messiah.

2) I showed (some of) the (many) requirements of Messiah that Jesus did not fulfill.

3) You declared that you can't rely on those old Hebrew prophets, because they were most likely possessed by demons.


Okay - here's where it get's tricky:

4) If the Hebrew prophets are possessed by demons, then you cannot believe ANY of their prophecy.

5) If you cannot trust Hebrew prophecy, there IS NO SUCH THING as Messiah, since 'messiah' is ONLY defined by Hebrew prophecies.

Thus, by your own admission:

6) There can be no Messiah - not even Jesus... because the prophecies are demonic.

OR, alternatively - if you assume that the Hebrews were NOT demon-led:

7) There CAN be a Messiah... but Jesus isn't it, because he fails to match the prophecies.


Some of the prophets can be believed, others must be carefully analyzed before being accepted, to make sure they weren't demonically possessed.

Yes, Yes, Yes. God made them to be hated, loathed, and rejected. He made them for the sole purpose of the Elect hating and rejecting them, of them hating and persecuting the Elect, and then of their being damned into hell forever, so the Elect can mock them and be avenged.

Romans 9:22-23 (New International Version)
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–

As Paul says, ""What if he did?" not "He did".

both perfect yet different?

So is each perfect in its own way, or what?


One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.

The other, I do tend to believe, was also divinely inspired and as such, is flawless.

Oral tradition passed down in the form of Oral Torah, which is acceptable in some cases for historical matters.

Actually - the 'confusion' stems from translating 'seeing his father's nakedness' as relating to the biblical sin of 'uncovering nakedness', which DOES mean to have intercourse with.

One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.

The other, I do tend to believe, was also divinely inspired and as such, is flawless.

Calvin wrote the bible? Wow.

One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.

The other, I do tend to believe, was also divinely inspired and as such, is flawless.



Then you admit that the scripture I quoted is in fact accurate? (about love)

Some of the prophets can be believed, others must be carefully analyzed before being accepted, to make sure they weren't demonically possessed.

Not accepting that.

You give me a 'mechanism' that can prove which prophets can be believed, and then ANOTHER mechanism to show how you can chose WHICH prophecies by a given prophet, are divine, and which demonic.

If you CAN'T do that - you are admitting that you are purely relying on ONLY believing what you WANT to believe.

If you honestly believe you are wiser than the Bible, you are claiming to be above god.

I don't believe you are above god - so show me how it can be irrefutably proved WHICH prophecies are divine, and which are demonic.

One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.

The other, I do tend to believe, was also divinely inspired and as such, is flawless.

So, how do you resolve contradictions between the two 'flawless' texts?

And, how do you resolve the contradictions WITHIN each flawless text?

Not all Calvinists believe the same, I don't want to force my beliefs on others, and I frankly don't care if others accept the 5 Points or not. If they don't, it's a sign of their reprobation and I really don't care who goes to hell and who doesn't, since God owns the universe and it's all His call anyway. I'm not going to question God.
You don't care?
Yet at the same time you state that you WILL demand the sheets as evidence of virginity, you WILL beat yours or others' children for whatever you deem an offense, you WILL lie to non-elect, etc etc.

Sounds an awful lot like you do care.

One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.

The other, I do tend to believe, was also divinely inspired and as such, is flawless.
Interesting.

If both are indeed perfect, and thus contain the absolute truth of God (they would have to be in order to be perfect) then they would have to be the same.

How do you reconcile contridictions between the two. 1 does not equal 3, there is but one truth, not many.

Yes, Yes, Yes. God made them to be hated, loathed, and rejected. He made them for the sole purpose of the Elect hating and rejecting them, of them hating and persecuting the Elect, and then of their being damned into hell forever, so the Elect can mock them and be avenged.

Romans 9:22-23 (New International Version)
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–


So, I guess Jesus wasn't one of the Elect, because he didn't hate, reject, persecute, damn, or mock in the following case:

John 8
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

What would you do if your son got a BLACK GIRL pregnant...? *gasp*

One was written by the prophet John Calvin, and God made the work flawless, so that is certainly perfect.


he sounds awfly like those false prophets we get warned about...

what he says seems to pretty much contradict what previous prophets, and even what the "son of god" himself says

1611 King James is the perfect translation, also the 1599 Geneva Bible is perfect as well.
Romans 9:22-23 (New International Version)
Why are you quoting a less than perfect translation. Does the wording better prove your point?

Ideally the women will bleed though. And anyway, the dad or mom (the bible I do believe specifies the mother ought to) can take the sheets while the newly wed couple is out for breakfast, that way there is no uncomfortable awkwardness.

Anyway, if for example, ten years down the road, somebody calls the woman a whore, or the husband tries to divorce her saying she wasn't a virgin, you'll have the proof.

The bible is quite clear on the matter.

Let me summarize what the Old Law says.

If the woman is given to the man on the premise that she is a virgin and she is not, he may either divorce her and/or have her stoned unto death.

If the woman is given to the man on the premise that she is a virgin, and she is indeed a virgin, and he tries to divorce her saying she is whore, and was not a virgin; then the father or mother of the woman will present the sheets, and the man who made the false accusation shall be stoned unto death.

I know this is from ages back, but I'd forgive my currently non-existent wife if I found out she was not a virgin. Whatever you might say, forgiveness was at the core of what Jesus did.

Not accepting that.

You give me a 'mechanism' that can prove which prophets can be believed, and then ANOTHER mechanism to show how you can chose WHICH prophecies by a given prophet, are divine, and which demonic.

If you CAN'T do that - you are admitting that you are purely relying on ONLY believing what you WANT to believe.

If you honestly believe you are wiser than the Bible, you are claiming to be above god.

I don't believe you are above god - so show me how it can be irrefutably proved WHICH prophecies are divine, and which are demonic.

Wow, you are a theological pit bull! :D

God hates abortion, that is why, he wouldn't want the unborn child to be aborted.

God loves abortion. :D

I'd be proud of my son, cause he must have done something right to get a girl naked...

You don't care?
Yet at the same time you state that you WILL demand the sheets as evidence of virginity, you WILL beat yours or others' children for whatever you deem an offense, you WILL lie to non-elect, etc etc.

Sounds an awful lot like you do care.



I'm done speaking with you, since I specifically stated I have no right to beat other folks kids, and would never do so. Thus you're lying by putting words in my mouth.

I'm done speaking to you for that reason.

I'm done speaking with you, since I specifically stated I have no right to beat other folks kids, and would never do so. Thus you're lying by putting words in my mouth.

I'm done speaking to you for that reason.
I went back and reread the post that led me to believe that. I appologize for misreading it.

However, my other points of contention still stand.

Wow, you are a theological pit bull! :D

Is that good? :)

I have to know whether to say "aww, shucks", or to start nipping your ankles....

I went back and reread the post that led me to believe that. I appologize for misreading it.

However, my other points of contention still stand.

Apology accepted, thank you.


Anyway, I do believe beating should be kept open as an option to a husband/father, simply because there could arise a situation where it is necessary. And when I say beating, it's really a subjective term, if you slap a kid in the face once to correct their cursing and swearing, it's okay, if you take a woodboard to them because you had a bad day, you ought to be put in jail.

I should therefore make it clear, I'm in favor of physical force to correct improper behavior, not simply beating somebody into submitting to your will.

Apology accepted, thank you.

Anyway, I do believe beating should be kept open as an option to a husband/father, simply because there could arise a situation where it is necessary. And when I say beating, it's really a subjective term, if you slap a kid in the face once to correct their cursing and swearing, it's okay, if you take a woodboard to them because you had a bad day, you ought to be put in jail.

I should therefore make it clear, I'm in favor of physical force to correct improper behavior, not simply beating somebody into submitting to your will.

You need to make up your mind... one second you are advocating beatings, and decrying weakness in those who DON'T use beating... the next second you are detailing how those who beat are abusers?

Which camp are you actually in?

Doesn't the bible tell you to stone to death a rebellious child?

Surely you should be in favour of unlimited cruelty to childre, then - even up to and including fatal.

I'm beginning to think my psych analysis of you was even closer than I had previously reckoned.... you think it's okay to 'beat' women, (who you identify with your mother), but argue against beating a 'child' (who you still identify with yourself).

What about if your child was a girl, who got pregnant?

You need to make up your mind... one second you are advocating beatings, and decrying weakness in those who DON'T use beating... the next second you are detailing how those who beat are abusers?

Which camp are you actually in?

Doesn't the bible tell you to stone to death a rebellious child?

Surely you should be in favour of unlimited cruelty to childre, then - even up to and including fatal.

I'm beginning to think my psych analysis of you was even closer than I had previously reckoned.... you think it's okay to 'beat' women, (who you identify with your mother), but argue against beating a 'child' (who you still identify with yourself).

What about if your child was a girl, who got pregnant?

If the purpose of the beating is to correct, to teach, and to show you love and care enough to correct them, and it's not causing permanent harm, and it's not with an object (you can never beat with a stick or anything like that, probably best to just use an open hand) then it is okay.

The bible gives the father that option, it doesn't say he must. The father could punish him in any way he sees fitting. (If I ever had a son who committed rape, I'd quite possibly kill him)

Beatings because you're drunk and angry, those ought to be illegal and they ought to carry a stiff prison sentence.

And no, it's the opposite, I think it's more appropriate for a father to hit a son, than a husband to hit a wife. A wife ought not to need to be hit, she is an adult (but she might need an occasional slap). Whereas a child is immature and will often need to be corrected.

What about if your child was a girl, who got pregnant?


Forgot to answer this part, sorry. Here goes.


I'd support her having the child and that'd be that, she'd have the child and that'd be that.

Is that good? :)

I have to know whether to say "aww, shucks", or to start nipping your ankles....


Lets just say I'd rather be on your side than across the table from you. ;)

Lets just say I'd rather be on your side than across the table from you. ;)

Then... aww, shucks. :)

Why, thank you.

If the purpose of the beating is to correct, to teach, and to show you love and care enough to correct them, and it's not causing permanent harm, and it's not with an object (you can never beat with a stick or anything like that, probably best to just use an open hand) then it is okay.

The bible gives the father that option, it doesn't say he must. The father could punish him in any way he sees fitting. (If I ever had a son who committed rape, I'd quite possibly kill him)

Beatings because you're drunk and angry, those ought to be illegal and they ought to carry a stiff prison sentence.

And no, it's the opposite, I think it's more appropriate for a father to hit a son, than a husband to hit a wife. A wife ought not to need to be hit, she is an adult (but she might need an occasional slap). Whereas a child is immature and will often need to be corrected.

Actually - the bible doesn't give an option - it says that a child disobeying their child is the same as 'a witch', and that witches should not be 'suffered to live'.

It even goes into detail about taking the child outside town, and getting ALL of the towns people to help you to stone them to death.

Very specific on it, it is.

Also - it very specifically states that children SHOULD be beaten with objects... a piece of wood, in fact. To be precise - it says that if you DON'T beat your child with a piece of wood, that means you HATE them.

By the way - the word that KJV transcribes as 'rod' (for beating) can also be translated directly as club, truncheon, sceptre and spear.

Whichever way you look at it, the bible is VERY specific that parents SHOULD physically hurt their children, with weapons... and kill them if they disobey.

Forgot to answer this part, sorry. Here goes.


I'd support her having the child and that'd be that, she'd have the child and that'd be that.

What if the child was conceived out of wedlock?

By your reckoning, she would be a whore, yes?

And, she'd have disobeyed you, yes?

And, you believe in beating whores, yes?

Second example: what if your THIRTEEN year old daughter comes home pregnant...?

Actually - the bible doesn't give an option - it says that a child disobeying their child is the same as 'a witch', and that witches should not be 'suffered to live'.

It even goes into detail about taking the child outside town, and getting ALL of the towns people to help you to stone them to death.

Very specific on it, it is.

Also - it very specifically states that children SHOULD be beaten with objects... a piece of wood, in fact. To be precise - it says that if you DON'T beat your child with a piece of wood, that means you HATE them.

By the way - the word that KJV transcribes as 'rod' (for beating) can also be translated directly as club, truncheon, sceptre and spear.

Whichever way you look at it, the bible is VERY specific that parents SHOULD physically hurt their children, with weapons... and kill them if they disobey.


Yes, and some of that is contradicted by what Christ said, some isn't though, so find a happy medium and go with it. Christ could be an aggressive man (the money changers in the temple) but he wasn't going around kicking the crap out of people, and I don't think I ought to (except folks who really, really need it, and in times of war, or to defend others). But anyway, I think the best way to discipline kids is with the backhand.

What if the child was conceived out of wedlock?

By your reckoning, she would be a whore, yes?

And, she'd have disobeyed you, yes?

And, you believe in beating whores, yes?

Second example: what if your THIRTEEN year old daughter comes home pregnant...?


1) Obviously it would be out of wedlock since I think we established she'd be between 14-17, although if the right man came along, I'd let her marry him if I thought she was mature enough to handle it and if I was convinced he could support her. (I've already established in other threads that if I had a good friend who was a 30 year old man and he wanted to marry my 16 year old daughter and she wanted to marry him, I'd allow it, so long as they loved each other and he could support her. Indeed I'd rather she marry a man I know well, trust, and approve of, then just some guy she brings home one day who I've not known at all.

2) Quite possibly, indeed probably yes. But a whore can be redeemed, remember that, God elected Mary Magdalene to be saved.

3) Yes and no, it depends, if I have a 14-17 year old daughter and I want her to get pregnant, and she goes out and does it, I could hardly blame her for it. Of course she'd damn well better be married first (and to a man that she loves and I approve of)

4) Possibly, probably, it depends, but most likely, yes.

5) Hmmm, again, it depends, if she was married, I'd be happy.

I misread the title as "What would you do if your son got pregnant?"
Well, I'd check in to the nearest psychiatric ward.
:D

I'd get medical conformation and split the reward with him when the baby was borne. :D

Yes, and some of that is contradicted by what Christ said, some isn't though, so find a happy medium and go with it. Christ could be an aggressive man (the money changers in the temple) but he wasn't going around kicking the crap out of people, and I don't think I ought to (except folks who really, really need it, and in times of war, or to defend others). But anyway, I think the best way to discipline kids is with the backhand.

I don't recall Jesus ever over-ruling the ban on witches, do you?

And the Old Testament says that the sin of rebellion is as witch-craft... so a child that disobeys his/her parent MUST be considered equaivalent to a 'witch'.

Jesus didn't revoke the death penalty for witches, did he?

Nor did he over-rule the stoning of disobedient children, as far as I recall... or the beating with rods.


You have made a liar of yourself, here - also. A while back I recall you xpressly stating that Jesus was warlike... in as much as you cited him demand a violent uprising on behalf of his disciples (paraphrasing).

Now - you had clearly quoted that verse out of context... and it looks now, like you are admitting that... but the point is... THAT version of Jesus doesn't match with this 'peaceful' Jesus that you are NOW trying to sell.

Ofcourse she does. But i am pro-abortion in these case.I believe its better than giving ur child away and thinkin all your life of that and ur constience eating you. Im no bible fan..so please save ur breath by tryin to convince me of anythin.
sorry if im a little late with this reply..

I'd get medical conformation and split the reward with him when the baby was borne. :D

I don't recall Jesus ever over-ruling the ban on witches, do you?

And the Old Testament says that the sin of rebellion is as witch-craft... so a child that disobeys his/her parent MUST be considered equaivalent to a 'witch'.

Jesus didn't revoke the death penalty for witches, did he?

Nor did he over-rule the stoning of disobedient children, as far as I recall... or the beating with rods.


You have made a liar of yourself, here - also. A while back I recall you xpressly stating that Jesus was warlike... in as much as you cited him demand a violent uprising on behalf of his disciples (paraphrasing).

Now - you had clearly quoted that verse out of context... and it looks now, like you are admitting that... but the point is... THAT version of Jesus doesn't match with this 'peaceful' Jesus that you are NOW trying to sell.


First let me address Christ's peaceful and war-mongering nature. It was a duality, he was clearly capable of both depending on the situation, indeed would you rather he was just one or the other? Are you not happy with how God is? (Take it up with God, if you think it's not blasphemy)

Christ, when it was necessary, was aggressive (The temple, the references to "Woe unto the world", etc)

When it was necessary, he was peaceful and forgiving (the sick who needed to be healed, those with demons)


Now, although me to address the part about witches, if they are possessed by demons, we ought to heal them in Christ's name. But in many cases, the only way to cure a witch is with fire (although decapitation and hanging works)

Allow me to explain Luke 22:36 (The part where he tells them to get swords, they do, and he says good that is enough) Then when Peter strikes the servant with the men coming to arrest him, he doesn't say, "Drop your sword" he says, "Put it back into its place." meaning that Christ acknowledges that swords have a place and a use, but he didn't want his followers to have them to defend him (He wanted to be arrested because it had to happen for him to die) he wanted them to have swords to defend themselves as they went out to spread the word so they could get it out far and wide before they died (and indeed many of them were martyred)

what if she refuses either keeping the baby or getting married?

Same thing VE would do.

You're making the idea of election up as you go along. Given your obvious tendency to externalise your personal trauma and your conviction about paedophilia, I'm bound to ask what your childhood sexual experiences were like?


Anybody who touches or harms a child, ought to be hanged, tarred, and set ablaze. Period.

Anybody who touches or harms a child, ought to be hanged, tarred, and set ablaze. Period.

You mean touches sexually, right?

You mean touches sexually, right?


Yes, I should have made that more clear, but I think most figured that out, yah?

Well, yes, sexually, that is what I meant. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Yes, I should have made that more clear, but I think most figured that out, yah?

Well, yes, sexually, that is what I meant. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Well I wasn't following the conversation. I just opened the thread and your post was the last one.

Well I wasn't following the conversation. I just opened the thread and your post was the last one.


That's why I thanked you for pointing that out so I could clear it up. :D

Anybody who touches or harms a child, ought to be hanged, tarred, and set ablaze. Period.

Agreed.

Agreed.
Well he said he wanted to beat his married daughter if he wasn't virgin, so obviously he wouldn't punish himself for hurting his ouwn child.

Well he said he wanted to beat his married daughter if he wasn't virgin, so obviously he wouldn't punish himself for hurting his ouwn child.
And that he'd beat a women (and that women should be beaten) if she "deserved it."

Well he said he wanted to beat his married daughter if he wasn't virgin, so obviously he wouldn't punish himself for hurting his ouwn child.


If you're correcting their behavior, it's not harming, indeed it's helping. You do more harm by letting children run wild.

If you're correcting their behavior, it's not harming, indeed it's helping. You do more harm by letting children run wild.
I agree. Beating a kid if it will help them is good, but beating one because they aren't a virgin on their wedding night is their personal choice if they're an adult and he would have no right to do that.

I agree. Beating a kid if it will help them is good, but beating one because they aren't a virgin on their wedding night is their personal choice if they're an adult and he would have no right to do that.

If my daughter was honest with the man and he accepted her for it, I'd be happy for the both of them. If she lied to him and told him she was a virgin and she wasn't, I'd be quite angry, but I suppose if she's an adult (what is an adult according to the law? over 12 for a female and over 13 for a male? and married) then it'd be up to her husband to discipline her.

If my daughter was honest with the man and he accepted her for it, I'd be happy for the both of them. If she lied to him and told him she was a virgin and she wasn't, I'd be quite angry, but I suppose if she's an adult (what is an adult according to the law? over 12 for a female and over 13 for a male? and married) then it'd be up to her husband to discipline her.
Good. I agree. Well, actually only paritally. I agree with the if she lied I wouldn't be happy part.

then it'd be up to her husband to discipline her.

If she's an adult, it's up to no-one to "discipline her." :rolleyes:

Unless you meant it in a kinky fun way... I somehow doubt that though.

If she's an adult, it's up to no-one to "discipline her." :rolleyes:

Unless you meant it in a kinky fun way... I somehow doubt that though.
lol... I don't think that's what he meant. You have a great point, though.

If she's an adult, it's up to no-one to "discipline her." :rolleyes:

Unless you meant it in a kinky fun way... I somehow doubt that though.


If a wife needs it, she ought to get, a light slap to sort of "Shock" her back into reality and make her realize what she is doing.

If a wife needs it, she ought to get, a light slap to sort of "Shock" her back into reality and make her realize what she is doing.
You're kidding me, right?!

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?
Offer the girl a ride to the nearest clinic and somewhere to stay while she recovers... and hoping that she chooses to go through on that path.
Then I would ground my son.

Offer the girl a ride to the nearest clinic and somewhere to stay while she recovers... and hoping that she chooses to go through on that path.
Then I would ground my son.
You'd only ground him?!

If my daughter was honest with the man and he accepted her for it, I'd be happy for the both of them. If she lied to him and told him she was a virgin and she wasn't, I'd be quite angry, but I suppose if she's an adult (what is an adult according to the law? over 12 for a female and over 13 for a male? and married) then it'd be up to her husband to discipline her.
1. Who the hell gets married to someone who would freak out over such an insignificant thing as virginity. If someone doesn't tell someoen they've had sex before, that's more a sign that something's wrong with the relationship, rather than the fact that the girl isn't a virgin.
2. 18 is adult in the eyes of the law.
3. Someone should discipline you. With that attitude towards women, a good beating could be "helping, not hurting" correct? If you advocate violence for solving behaviour problems then maybe you woudln't mind someone doing the same to you.

You're kidding me, right?!

Told ya.

EDIT:
3. Someone should discipline you. With that attitude towards women, a good beating could be "helping, not hurting" correct? If you advocate violence for solving behaviour problems then maybe you woudln't mind someone doing the same to you.
*hugs Dakini*

You're kidding me, right?!


Not one bit. If your mother, a woman who was used to her father beating her, and did dumb shit to try to get attention (she cheated on my dad with at least 1/2 dozen, maybe a dozen, various guys) was running around doing dumb shit to get attention, you'd think she'd need (and deserve) more than just a light slap.

Indeed she hit my dad, threw things at him, she walked all over him because he let her, he didn't give her what she wanted. She wanted him to beat her senseless, she's obviously a major masochist, or something is wrong, I don't know.

Maybe for her, being beaten was the only thing she was used to and she couldn't accept he loved her and didn't want to beat her. (My dad thinks it's wrong to hit anybody, particularly women)

Told ya.
Well, honestly I don't think he is it's jsut he's getting less believable by the day. Every day I tell him how unreasonable he is and everyday he comes back with new unrational arguments. But that's okay, VE is still awesome.

1. Who the hell gets married to someone who would freak out over such an insignificant thing as virginity. If someone doesn't tell someoen they've had sex before, that's more a sign that something's wrong with the relationship, rather than the fact that the girl isn't a virgin.
2. 18 is adult in the eyes of the law.
3. Someone should discipline you. With that attitude towards women, a good beating could be "helping, not hurting" correct? If you advocate violence for solving behaviour problems then maybe you woudln't mind someone doing the same to you.


1) Virginity does matter in many regards, but if they're a good enough person and you care enough about them, it doesn't have to matter.

2) Read the torah.

3) I don't need a beating because I've done nothing to warrant one. Anyway, I don't crave beatings (my mother did).

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?


It would really depend on the situation, until I was actual in that situation and new all the variable then I could give some advise. However, based on what little information I know there is no advise that I can give you then this.

Do what ever you feel is best for both your son and the unborn child.

You'd only ground him?!
Well, what else would I do?

I'd yell at him, instruct him on proper precautions to prevent something like that happening in the future and force him to stay home for some time, unplug the t.v. so he has nothing do do but homework and read. No phone either.

I'm not going to wail on him for something like that, hell, I probably wouldn't even punish the kid if everything worked out (i.e. no birth or immediate adoption) and he was freaked out enough by the experience to wake up and start being responsable about contracepton.

I might also drive him to the doctor's to get some tests for STI's done too... if he was going about having unprotected sex and all.

Not one bit. If your mother, a woman who was used to her father beating her, and did dumb shit to try to get attention (she cheated on my dad with at least 1/2 dozen, maybe a dozen, various guys) was running around doing dumb shit to get attention, you'd think she'd need (and deserve) more than just a light slap.

Indeed she hit my dad, threw things at him, she walked all over him because he let her, he didn't give her what she wanted. She wanted him to beat her senseless, she's obviously a major masochist, or something is wrong, I don't know.

Maybe for her, being beaten was the only thing she was used to and she couldn't accept he loved her and didn't want to beat her. (My dad thinks it's wrong to hit anybody, particularly women)
I agree with him to a point... not you, but him... You're mother beat you and that's probably why you think that way. Why are you sexist, though? I can'tfigure it out but you're severely sexist...

Not one bit. If your mother, a woman who was used to her father beating her, and did dumb shit to try to get attention (she cheated on my dad with at least 1/2 dozen, maybe a dozen, various guys) was running around doing dumb shit to get attention, you'd think she'd need (and deserve) more than just a light slap.

Indeed she hit my dad, threw things at him, she walked all over him because he let her, he didn't give her what she wanted. She wanted him to beat her senseless, she's obviously a major masochist, or something is wrong, I don't know.

Maybe for her, being beaten was the only thing she was used to and she couldn't accept he loved her and didn't want to beat her. (My dad thinks it's wrong to hit anybody, particularly women)

Just because your mother, ONE PERSON, was violent, does not mean that women need to be hit so that they're "kept in line."

That's just you, yet again, transferring your anger at your mother onto an entire sex, couched in your "religion."

It would really depend on the situation, until I was actual in that situation and new all the variable then I could give some advise. However, based on what little information I know there is no advise that I can give you then this.

Do what ever you feel is best for both your son and the unborn child.
Is that shades of grey thing from your signature lyrics by live?

1) Virginity does matter in many regards, but if they're a good enough person and you care enough about them, it doesn't have to matter.

2) Read the torah.

3) I don't need a beating because I've done nothing to warrant one. Anyway, I don't crave beatings (my mother did).
1. Female virginity only matters to men who are insecure and afraid a more experienced woman will hold them up to high standards that they will fail to measure up to.

2. This became about religion when...? You asked when one is considered an adult by law. That would be 18 in most places. You can't enter into a binding contract at 12.

3. You are a chauvist, in my books, that means that you have some serious misconceptions about the treatment of women. Husbands to not have the right to discipline their wives any more than wives have the right to discipline their husbands. These are two adults you're talking about. Two equals.

1. Female virginity only matters to men who are insecure and afraid a more experienced woman will hold them up to high standards that they will fail to measure up to.

2. This became about religion when...? You asked when one is considered an adult by law. That would be 18 in most places. You can't enter into a binding contract at 12.

3. You are a chauvist, in my books, that means that you have some serious misconceptions about the treatment of women. Husbands to not have the right to discipline their wives any more than wives have the right to discipline their husbands. These are two adults you're talking about. Two equals.


3) Read the post I made. My mother was never home more than 8 hours any day, she was working (she was a "Working woman" out in the "Real world" taking care of her kid just didn't "Do it for her") she f---- her boss daily, she f---- patients, co-workers, colleagues, and she was basically f----- anybody she came across that she wanted to f---. If that doesn't deserve a beating, what does?

Also, she hit my dad, it was an invitation, she wanted to be hit back, don't you think she did?

3) Read the bost I made. My mother was never home more than 8 hours any day, she was working (she was a "Working woman" out in the "Real world" taking care of her kid just didn't "Do it for her") she f---- her boss daily, she f---- patients, co-workers, colleagues, and she was basically f----- anybody she came across that she wanted to f---. If that doesn't deserve a beating, what does?

Also, she hit my dad, it was an invitation, she wanted to be hit back, don't you think she did?
...And a woman's only role in life is to bear and care for children?

Why didn't your father stay home and look after you?

Yes, she shouldn't have hit your father or cheated on him, but neither is an excuse for him to randomly beat her to "keep her in line" if anything, that's an invitation for a divorce.

...And a woman's only role in life is to bear and care for children?

Why didn't your father stay home and look after you?

Yes, she shouldn't have hit your father or cheated on him, but neither is an excuse for him to randomly beat her to "keep her in line" if anything, that's an invitation for a divorce.


My father had to work to put her lazy butt through college and support her high on the hog lifestyle.

He worked 10 hours a day often, and he handled getting me to pre-school, picking me up, getting me dinner, cooking, cleaning, putting me to bed (after bathing me)

You know, don't you dare tell me my mother did a darn thing to raise me. I NEVER remember her making dinner more than a dozen times in the 6 years I was alive while they were married (they were married about 8 years). I never remember her bathing me more than 2-3 times. She never read to me more than 2-5 times, she only took care of me when company was around, so she looked good for her friends.

My dad took care of the house, raised me, and worked himself nearly to death, while she did nothing (well that's not entirely true, she did any man who came along, and that was the problem, my dad thought marriage was supposed to mutually faithful)

...And a woman's only role in life is to bear and care for children?

Why didn't your father stay home and look after you?


1) No, but I guess my father was mistaken when he thought marriage was supposed to mean something and he was a sexist for expecting my mother not to sleep around. After all, "Times have changed!" my mother was a "Liberated woman" and "Damnit, no man will tell her what to do!"


2) Because men work, period. Stay at home dads are typically feminized men who have been socially castrated. (There are mountains of books about this, one of them is called "The Castration of the American Male" I suggest you read it)

1) No, but I guess my father was mistaken when he thought marriage was supposed to mean something and he was a sexist for expecting my mother not to sleep around. After all, "Times have changed!" my mother was a "Liberated woman" and "Damnit, no man will tell her what to do!"

That makes no sense and you know it.
And explains your hatred of feminism really.

2) Because men work, period. Stay at home dads are typically feminized men who have been socially castrated. (There are mountains of books about this, one of them is called "The Castration of the American Male" I suggest you read it)

Wow, women should stay home and raise kids because men work? Rrright, remind me NEVER to ask you for logic. And I wouldn't touch your propaganda with a ten foot pole.

You don't know what a real man is at all.

1) No, but I guess my father was mistaken when he thought marriage was supposed to mean something and he was a sexist for expecting my mother not to sleep around. After all, "Times have changed!" my mother was a "Liberated woman" and "Damnit, no man will tell her what to do!"


2) Because men work, period. Stay at home dads are typically feminized men who have been socially castrated. (There are mountains of books about this, one of them is called "The Castration of the American Male" I suggest you read it)
1. That doesn't make her a "liberated woman" that makes her a bitch, stop trying to pin your mommy issues on every woman on the planet.

2. Some women work and some men stay home. It works just as well. It doesn't matter who looks after the kids or hell, if they go to a day care. It doesn't make you any less of a disgusting, sexist pig though.

My father had to work to put her lazy butt through college and support her high on the hog lifestyle.

She earned a college degree, did she not? That's not necessarily a mark of beign lazy.

He worked 10 hours a day often, and he handled getting me to pre-school, picking me up, getting me dinner, cooking, cleaning, putting me to bed (after bathing me)

You know, don't you dare tell me my mother did a darn thing to raise me. I NEVER remember her making dinner more than a dozen times in the 6 years I was alive while they were married (they were married about 8 years). I never remember her bathing me more than 2-3 times. She never read to me more than 2-5 times, she only took care of me when company was around, so she looked good for her friends.

My dad took care of the house, raised me, and worked himself nearly to death, while she did nothing (well that's not entirely true, she did any man who came along, and that was the problem, my dad thought marriage was supposed to mutually faithful)
Ok, are you hearing yourself? You obviously have some deep seated issues with your mother and you are transferring these feelings on other women.

I hope you get married and you hit your wife for looking at another man and she gets you put in the slammer for assault.

That makes no sense and you know it.
And explains your hatred of feminism really.


Wow, women should stay home and raise kids because men work? Rrright, remind me NEVER to ask you for logic. And I wouldn't touch your propaganda with a ten foot pole.

You don't know what a real man is at all.


You wouldn't know a real man if it was 10 feet from you.

I'll tell you what a real man is, because I was there with him at 5:30-7:30 pm (it varies), as he walked in the door, tired and worn out from working to support his family.

He didn't complain that his harpie bit-- excuse of a wife didn't have dinner ready, often wasn't even home, and many times, was just waiting by the door to nag and read her list of complaints. "I wrecked the car, but here's why it was your fault!" (She wrecked about 3 of his cars over a several year period), "Here's what you didn't do today!", "Why aren't you home earlier!", "What is your problem!", "Why are you so ugly!", "I'm not making you dinner!", "I'm going to New York to go ski, you have to drive me!"

And he just nodded and ignored her, and then went to make me dinner. He didn't hit her, although she certainly more than deserved it, and he didn't complain, he just took care of me and ignored her.

That is a man, a real man, and you wouldn't know a real man if one fell on you.

That is a man, a real man, and you wouldn't know a real man if one fell on you.
Actually, I'm going to marry one. :)
He loves and respects me as an equal.
It's great and I feel sorry for you that you'll never experience anything like that.

She earned a college degree, did she not? That's not necessarily a mark of beign lazy.


Ok, are you hearing yourself? You obviously have some deep seated issues with your mother and you are transferring these feelings on other women.

I hope you get married and you hit your wife for looking at another man and she gets you put in the slammer for assault.


She earned a college degree, wow, B.F.D. she did nothing to help her family, and she did nothing to ever repay or even thank my dad for his endless hours of working to put her butt through college. She didn't earn the degree, he paid for her to be able to go to class, with books, have a car to get around, and she did the easy part (college classes aren't too hard, paying for it all can be though).

I don't think so.

I don't think so, first of all, you claim to be for women, but you hope I hit a woman? Wow... Secondly, I'd not have a problem with her looking at other men, the problem would arise if she was in bed with one when I arrived home from work (This happened with my father, he caught her, in HIS house, in bed with another man)

You wouldn't know a real man if it was 10 feet from you.

I'll tell you what a real man is, because I was there with him at 5:30-7:30 pm (it varies), as he walked in the door, tired and worn out from working to support his family.

He didn't complain that his harpie bit-- excuse of a wife didn't have dinner ready, often wasn't even home, and many times, was just waiting by the door to nag and read her list of complaints. "I wrecked the car, but here's why it was your fault!" (She wrecked about 3 of his cars over a several year period), "Here's what you didn't do today!", "Why aren't you home earlier!", "What is your problem!", "Why are you so ugly!", "I'm not making you dinner!", "I'm going to New York to go ski, you have to drive me!"

And he just nodded and ignored her, and then went to make me dinner. He didn't hit her, although she certainly more than deserved it, and he didn't complain, he just took care of me and ignored her.

That is a man, a real man, and you wouldn't know a real man if one fell on you.
So you have all this priase for your father and anger towards your mother and yet you seek to be an abusive husband, which your father was not, while your mother was an abusive wife... funny how that works.

1. That doesn't make her a "liberated woman" that makes her a bitch, stop trying to pin your mommy issues on every woman on the planet.

2. Some women work and some men stay home. It works just as well. It doesn't matter who looks after the kids or hell, if they go to a day care. It doesn't make you any less of a disgusting, sexist pig though.


Actually day care has been proven to have an adversely negative impact on children.

And no, I'm not a sexist and not a pig, and certainly not a sexist pig.

Actually, I'm going to marry one. :)
He loves and respects me as an equal.
It's great and I feel sorry for you that you'll never experience anything like that.


You can love and respect a woman, that's fine. And I'd like to find a woman I could love and respect, however as sad as it may sound, or as upset as you may get to hear it (hear the truth), most modern women are selfish, self-centered, "Me me me", whores, this is my opinion based on nearly 19 years of observing the modern woman in daily life.


I don't want you to feel sorry for me, I don't think you know what I'll experience and what I won't.

You wouldn't know a real man if it was 10 feet from you.

I'll tell you what a real man is, because I was there with him at 5:30-7:30 pm (it varies), as he walked in the door, tired and worn out from working to support his family.

He didn't complain that his harpie bit-- excuse of a wife didn't have dinner ready, often wasn't even home, and many times, was just waiting by the door to nag and read her list of complaints. "I wrecked the car, but here's why it was your fault!" (She wrecked about 3 of his cars over a several year period), "Here's what you didn't do today!", "Why aren't you home earlier!", "What is your problem!", "Why are you so ugly!", "I'm not making you dinner!", "I'm going to New York to go ski, you have to drive me!"

And he just nodded and ignored her, and then went to make me dinner. He didn't hit her, although she certainly more than deserved it, and he didn't complain, he just took care of me and ignored her.

That is a man, a real man, and you wouldn't know a real man if one fell on you.

Do you ever think that your negative opinions of women have anything to do with the terrible example of one that you grew up with?

So you have all this priase for your father and anger towards your mother and yet you seek to be an abusive husband, which your father was not, while your mother was an abusive wife... funny how that works.

She wanted him to hit her, he could saved the marriage by hitting her, she wanted to be challenged, her behavior was a crying out, "Look at me! Look what I'm doing! Pay attention to me!" like an unruly child who craves attention, because they don't think they're getting enough, so they do whatever they can to get it.

Although in her case, she wanted it all, he had to work long hours to support her lifestyle, he had to do this, that, give her all this attention. To please her, he'd need a 48 hour day, that just couldn't happen.

I don't think so, first of all, you claim to be for women, but you hope I hit a woman?
Well, if your ass in jail for treating your wife liek she's your property and hitting her of "disciplining her" is what it takes you to realize that women aren't property, then well, good. I'm sure this hypothetical wife would be fine after the divorce, what with the restraining order and all.

She wanted him to hit her, he could saved the marriage by hitting her, she wanted to be challenged, her behavior was a crying out, "Look at me! Look what I'm doing! Pay attention to me!" like an unruly child who craves attention, because they don't think they're getting enough, so they do whatever they can to get it.

Although in her case, she wanted it all, he had to work long hours to support her lifestyle, he had to do this, that, give her all this attention. To please her, he'd need a 48 hour day, that just couldn't happen.

From the sounds of your mother, if your father ever hit her, she probably would have filed for divorce and tried to take all his money, along with you and whatever siblings you may or may not have. Hitting her would not have yielded any positive results.

most modern women are selfish, self-centered, "Me me me", whores, this is my opinion based on nearly 19 years of observing the modern woman in daily life.
MOST women? That immediately nullifies this. You CANNOT infer what MOST women are like. "most women are whores" is the hallmark of the insecure male.


I don't want you to feel sorry for me, I don't think you know what I'll experience and what I won't.
I know that no self-respecting woman would marry you.

Do you ever think that your negative opinions of women have anything to do with the terrible example of one that you grew up with?



Hard to say, I hardly dealt with her, she was not around more often than she was around. Even on vacations, she'd ditch me (a 10 year old) and go run off with the first handsome guy she saw. I was left to walk around Mrytle Beach on my own around age 11, Toronto various times from age 12-15, various islands of the Caribbean around age 12, various ski resorts in Albera and British Columbia around age 10. I spent time on her and my "Family vacations" alone, than with her, although we did have a few fun times, but still, it was rather depressing that most of the time I was either outside alone (A child alone in a foreign country) or in the hotel room watching TV while she off doing God knows what (or God knows who)

Hard to say, I hardly dealt with her, she was not around more often than she was around. Even on vacations, she'd ditch me (a 10 year old) and go run off with the first handsome guy she saw. I was left to walk around Mrytle Beach on my own around age 11, Toronto various times from age 12-15, various islands of the Caribbean around age 12, various ski resorts in Albera and British Columbia around age 10. I spent time on her and my "Family vacations" alone, than with her, although we did have a few fun times, but still, it was rather depressing that most of the time I was either outside alone (A child alone in a foreign country) or in the hotel room watching TV while she off doing God knows what (or God knows who)

Yeah, but the mother is the primary female influence in a boy's life. If you have a bad example of a woman, as it sounds like you did, then that can really negatively impact your views towards women later on in your life. You must admit that all this anger you have towards women is due in no small part to your mother.

You can love and respect a woman, that's fine. And I'd like to find a woman I could love and respect, however as sad as it may sound, or as upset as you may get to hear it (hear the truth), most modern women are selfish, self-centered, "Me me me", whores, this is my opinion based on nearly 19 years of observing the modern woman in daily life.


I don't want you to feel sorry for me, I don't think you know what I'll experience and what I won't.
You observed one woman who most everyone will agree based on your description is a bitch. This is not an example of the "modern woman" this is an example of a bitch. There are men like that out there too, screw it, you're on the ignore list.

Well, if your ass in jail for treating your wife liek she's your property and hitting her of "disciplining her" is what it takes you to realize that women aren't property, then well, good. I'm sure this hypothetical wife would be fine after the divorce, what with the restraining order and all.


Nah, the idea of a restraining order doesn't float my boat, they tend to try to take all your guns then.

My dad's best friend, his ex-wife, on top of putting their healthy family dog to sleep (his favorite pet), and trying to charge him with assault (he slid on some ice and his foot tapped her foot), got a restraining order against him.

The police officer went to his house (Friends) and said, "Well sorry but I have to serve you this, and if you have any guns in the house, don't tell me..." (He got the restraining order revoked within a week after it was found out she lied about him threatening her)

But anyway, see how it's not just my mother, but my dad's friend's mom. My neighbor's mom is a bit odd too (The kid who lives across the way from my house), his mother is basically a loon, but not nearly 1/2 of what my mother is.

Yeah, but the mother is the primary female influence in a boy's life. If you have a bad example of a woman, as it sounds like you did, then that can really negatively impact your views towards women later on in your life. You must admit that all this anger you have towards women is due in no small part to your mother.



Meh, I don't know, my dad always told me all women weren't like my mother, but the only women I've ever really been interested in were older women, younger women were always pestering me throughout 6th-12th grade, and bothering me, never interested in offering any real relationship, they just wanted to have sex (And I'm glad to this day, I turned them all down). I never wanted sex, I wanted to be emotionally connected with somebody, and to be with somebody that cared about me and that I could care about.


When all you see is rotten women, it's going to be impossible to accept there are good women out there. Point me to where they all are, for there seem to be none, in the tricounty area around Cleveland.

MOST women? That immediately nullifies this. You CANNOT infer what MOST women are like. "most women are whores" is the hallmark of the insecure male.


I know that no self-respecting woman would marry you.


1) I think I can because I think I just did.

2) Good, then I'll marry a push-over who likes being a push-over, and I'll be happy and she'll be happy and we'll be happy together. A marriage will fail if the man isn't clearly in control, I've seen this firsthand in every failed marriage that I've witnessed. My dad's, his friends', etc. The men didn't know how to deal with unruly women who wanted a strong man to control them, and couldn't respect a man who let himself be pushed around by a woman.

Meh, I don't know, my dad always told me all women weren't like my mother, but the only women I've ever really been interested in were older women, younger women were always pestering me throughout 6th-12th grade, and bothering me, never interested in offering any real relationship, they just wanted to have sex (And I'm glad to this day, I turned them all down). I never wanted sex, I wanted to be emotionally connected with somebody, and to be with somebody that cared about me and that I could care about.


When all you see is rotten women, it's going to be impossible to accept there are good women out there. Point me to where they all are, for there seem to be none, in the tricounty area around Cleveland.

Well at 6th-12th grade, not wanting sex is definately in the minority. Even as you get older, you're going to have a hard time finding someone who isn't interested in the physical aspect of a relationship because, to a lot of people, myself included, the emotional bond you forge with someone while you're intimate is important too. But there are plenty of people out there who are looking for what you want, you just need to find them.

It sounds like the reason you're having a hard time finding what you call a "good woman" is a combination of exceedingly high standards and a lack of concerted effort in finding them. Get out and meet women, and don't be so quick to dismiss ones that don't meet all of your criteria.

Your anger towards all women is unfounded. Just because you've had bad experiences with some women growing up doesn't mean that all women are bad. As Dakini stated earlier, most people would agree that the woman you described as your mother isn't a typical woman. She's a bitch; pardon me saying so. Most women aren't like that, and the problem that a lot of people here are having with you is that you seem to assume that all women ARE like your mother. It's an unfair assumption to make of people, and I couldn't blame some of the girls here for taking offence to it. You'd be just as angered if my cousin Jen compared all men to her deadbeat father, don't you think? Saying that all men are deadbeat losers who don't take care of their children and avoid paying child support.

I think you need to re-evaluate your position on women as a gender. Certainly most of the women here don't deserve to be classified along with your mother. It's just not fair.

Saying that all men are deadbeat losers who don't take care of their children and avoid paying child support.

I think you need to re-evaluate your position on women as a gender. Certainly most of the women here don't deserve to be classified along with your mother. It's just not fair.


1) Indeed 60% of refusal to pay support cases, are none other than... Women.
Such was the case in my family anyway, it tooks years for my mother to be made to pay.


2) I don't trust most men, so you're not going to get me to trust women that easily. People earn my trust, and probably less than 5 NSers are counted as folks I trust talking to over IM about serious issues that concern me and they talk to me about issues they're having.

1) Indeed 60% of refusal to pay support cases, are none other than... Women.
Such was the case in my family anyway, it tooks years for my mother to be made to pay.

That's entirely irrelevant. What other people refuse to pay child support has nothing to do with the fact that my uncle ran out on my aunt and left her with three children, and avoided paying child support for more than 10 years. I was merely using it as an example of a poor excuse of a man that you would not want to be compared to, just as your mother is a poor excuse of a woman that most girls I know would not want to be compared to.


2) I don't trust most men, so you're not going to get me to trust women that easily. People earn my trust, and probably less than 5 NSers are counted as folks I trust talking to over IM about serious issues that concern me and they talk to me about issues they're having.

I never said you had to trust them. I merely said that you should stop instantly categorizing all women you meet in the same group as your mother. It seems as though you automatically assume the worst of women. I am just saying give them a chance to prove themselves to you; don't immediately assume that they are bad people.

That's entirely irrelevant. What other people refuse to pay child support has nothing to do with the fact that my uncle ran out on my aunt and left her with three children, and avoided paying child support for more than 10 years. I was merely using it as an example of a poor excuse of a man that you would not want to be compared to, just as your mother is a poor excuse of a woman that most girls I know would not want to be compared to.



I never said you had to trust them. I merely said that you should stop instantly categorizing all women you meet in the same group as your mother. It seems as though you automatically assume the worst of women. I am just saying give them a chance to prove themselves to you; don't immediately assume that they are bad people.


Yeah, I know a really low man, my aunt's "boyfriend" who has been living with her ever since my uncle died. The man doesn't work, doesn't discipline his son (his son ran up a 600+ dollar phone bill which she had to pay) he won't do anything except sit around and play nintendo. He maybe works 12 hours a month doing odd jobs to get money to buy video games and other stuff. She's a wonderful woman and deserves better, and she had better, but my uncle is dead now and well she's with a jerk who won't even marry her.

If my uncle were here today, he'd flip out, he be asking her, "What are you doing with that loser?" and then he'd punch the guy out, well that's what I hear anyway, I never met him, but my father tells me he was a really great guy, and I believe my dad when he speaks on such matters.

Yeah, I know a really low man, my aunt's "boyfriend" who has been living with her ever since my uncle died. The man doesn't work, doesn't discipline his son (his son ran up a 600+ dollar phone bill which she had to pay) he won't do anything except sit around and play nintendo. He maybe works 12 hours a month doing odd jobs to get money to buy video games and other stuff. She's a wonderful woman and deserves better, and she had better, but my uncle is dead now and well she's with a jerk who won't even marry her.

If my uncle were here today, he'd flip out, he be asking her, "What are you doing with that loser?" and then he'd punch the guy out, well that's what I hear anyway, I never met him, but my father tells me he was a really great guy, and I believe my dad when he speaks on such matters.

You see what I'm saying, though? There is useless scum in both genders. And there are really amazing people of both genders. It's not really fair to assume that everyone is one of those useless scum just because you've had some bad experiences in the past. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be evaluated by someone based on a person they'd met in the past, right?

You see what I'm saying, though? There is useless scum in both genders. And there are really amazing people of both genders. It's not really fair to assume that everyone is one of those useless scum just because you've had some bad experiences in the past. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be evaluated by someone based on a person they'd met in the past, right?


But then why does she put up with him, are women just crazy either in that they're violently aggressive towards men (my mother) or they're passive and let a loser leech of them (my aunt down south), what is up with all that?

There must be sane women out there somewhere, yes? But I've yet to find one in my neck of the woods, in NE Ohio.

But then why does she put up with him, are women just crazy either in that they're violently aggressive towards men (my mother) or they're passive and let a loser leech of them (my aunt down south), what is up with all that?

There must be sane women out there somewhere, yes? But I've yet to find one in my neck of the woods, in NE Ohio.

Well, similar to why your aunt puts up with that deadbeat boyfriend, why did your father put up with your mother? It goes both ways.

Women aren't either "violently aggressive towards men" or "passive and let a loser leech of them". They're both, and neither, and more.

I'm choosing to ignore all the argument, and answer the question at hand. I would tell him to do the same thing that i would do in his shoes, though i would hope that i would have raised him in such a way as he would know what i would tell him before i did. i would make sure that he understood that the baby was growing iinside her, and though he may be very opinionated, his opinions don't matter, not about that. Whatever she chooses, he needs to be there for her, by her side, be it birthing the child and raising it, putting it up for adoption, or aborting.

Well, similar to why your aunt puts up with that deadbeat boyfriend, why did your father put up with your mother? It goes both ways.

Women aren't either "violently aggressive towards men" or "passive and let a loser leech of them". They're both, and neither, and more.


My dad thought my mother would eventually change, when he realized she wouldn't, he divorced her and moved on.

Well let me see if he ever got a girl pergent i would tell him to get a job or to get rid of the thing.Well ok it is reaLLY NOT his disicsion to make it is more like the girls but that is me :)

My dad thought my mother would eventually change, when he realized she wouldn't, he divorced her and moved on.

Well then maybe that's your answer. Maybe your aunt still has it in her head that her boyfriend might change and make something of himself. I don't know, you'd have to ask him. But her reason probably isn't because she's a glutton for punishment and likes being taken advantage of. Women aren't stupid.

Well then maybe that's your answer. Maybe your aunt still has it in her head that her boyfriend might change and make something of himself. I don't know, you'd have to ask him. But her reason probably isn't because she's a glutton for punishment and likes being taken advantage of. Women aren't stupid.


He's NEVER going to change, and she deserves better. It's bad enough that he is a loser that doesn't work, God help him if he lays a hand on her.

There is no indication he does, but most losers who sit on their butts and leech off others, probably are going to be nasty as well, since they hate themselves for being unable or unwilling to make something of themself, but nobody is to blame for his laziness except for him!

Anyway, he'd have no right to slap her or anything like that, she works and manages the house, she's like the "Do it all" woman, a go-getter, like my dad.

If I ever heard he slapped her, I'd drive the 1,500+ miles to go kick his butt myself!

He's NEVER going to change, and she deserves better. It's bad enough that he is a loser that doesn't work, God help him if he lays a hand on her.

There is no indication he does, but most losers who sit on their butts and leech off others, probably are going to be nasty as well, since they hate themselves for being unable or unwilling to make something of themself, but nobody is to blame for his laziness except for him!

Anyway, he'd have no right to slap her or anything like that, she works and manages the house, she's like the "Do it all" woman, a go-getter, like my dad.

If I ever heard he slapped her, I'd drive the 1,500+ miles to go kick his butt myself!

Maybe you realize that he's never going to change, but she apparently still holds out hope. When did you realize your mother was never going to get better, and when did your father leave her?

Maybe you realize that he's never going to change, but she apparently still holds out hope. When did you realize your mother was never going to get better, and when did your father leave her?


After she kept pissing away his "Last chances" to stop her adultery and stop acting like a harpie. He eventually just accepted that she wasn't worth the effort and she wasn't good enough for him, and that he deserved better and I didn't deserve to be in an environment where she was also.

They were married about 8 years I do believe.

After she kept pissing away his "Last chances" to stop her adultery and stop acting like a harpie. He eventually just accepted that she wasn't worth the effort and she wasn't good enough for him, and that he deserved better and I didn't deserve to be in an environment where she was also.

They were married about 8 years I do believe.

Right. So he didn't just kick her to the curb the first time she did something wrong. He gave her chance after chance after chance because he believed she might change.

Take after your father. Give women a chance before you instantly demonize them.

Right. So he didn't just kick her to the curb the first time she did something wrong. He gave her chance after chance after chance because he believed she might change.

Take after your father. Give women a chance before you instantly demonize them.


But he was so forgiving to the point she walked all over him. What I think she wanted was for him to lay down the law and get rough with her, not coddle and say, "Ah, don't do it again." (She wanted to be commanded, by a strong man, not politely asked by a weakling)

But he was so forgiving to the point she walked all over him. What I think she wanted was for him to lay down the law and get rough with her, not coddle and say, "Ah, don't do it again." (She wanted to be commanded, by a strong man, not politely asked by a weakling)

Are you calling your father a weakling? To me, he sounds like a man with near limitless patience. Far more patience than I think I'd ever be able to maintain. He sounds like a strong and calm man, who isn't quick to anger. Maybe he let her walk all over him. That's bad. Don't do that. But take at least something from him. He knew that people shouldn't be punished eternally for one mistake. He knew that people deserve second chances.

I'm not saying let women walk all over you. I'm just saying you shouldn't instantly assume the worst of people.

with the issue of predestination, does that mean we shouldn't try to convert ppl into christianity? So all missionaries are doing what they are doing in vain? (paul?)

No grandson of mine would be murdered in the womb.

what if they was a gay athiest multiracial feminist

1) I think I can because I think I just did.

You can think whatever you like. Doesn't mean it's right though. :D

That is never an option, as a matter of fact, I'd let her realize, if she even considered it, I'd have her in court and charge her with raping my son, or taking advantage of somebody not emotionally mature enough to consent.

In Ohio, anybody between 13-17 may have sex with anybody between 13-17 provided it is consensual and they gave valid consent (ie. not drunk, mentally handicapped, emotionally disturbed, etc). I'd have a shrink say my boy was distraught and didn't know what he was getting into, that is if the girl talked about abortion. But I think I'd be able to scare her into not even thinking the word "abortion".

No grandson of mine would be murdered in the womb.

I'm glad I'm not your son, and even gladder I'm not a girl so I couldn't become pregnant from any son of yours either. In fact, I hope that any girl considering that action will first realize what kind of person she'd have as an in-law, and move far, far away.

MOST women? That immediately nullifies this. You CANNOT infer what MOST women are like. "most women are whores" is the hallmark of the insecure male.


All that 75% of the girls at my school want, is a boyfriend that will buy them whatever they want. In return, the boyfriend gets somene to have sex with.

All that 75% of the girls at my school want, is a boyfriend that will buy them whatever they want. In return, the boyfriend gets somene to have sex with.

are we only talking about the US here?

Meh, I don't know, my dad always told me all women weren't like my mother, but the only women I've ever really been interested in were older women, younger women were always pestering me throughout 6th-12th grade, and bothering me, never interested in offering any real relationship, they just wanted to have sex (And I'm glad to this day, I turned them all down). Are you sure that they didn't sense your animosity and just try to annoy you? Most of the girls I know aren't like that at all (are Catholics actually)… but I have never, ever, ever been offered sex by any girl… bloody glad too.

All that 75% of the girls at my school want, is a boyfriend that will buy them whatever they want. In return, the boyfriend gets somene to have sex with.
I get the feeling that you're saying this because you can't get laid.

Though if this is highschool that you're talking about then from my recollection, at least 75% of the guys there were idiots.

First let me address Christ's peaceful and war-mongering nature. It was a duality, he was clearly capable of both depending on the situation, indeed would you rather he was just one or the other? Are you not happy with how God is? (Take it up with God, if you think it's not blasphemy)

Christ, when it was necessary, was aggressive (The temple, the references to "Woe unto the world", etc)

When it was necessary, he was peaceful and forgiving (the sick who needed to be healed, those with demons)


Now, although me to address the part about witches, if they are possessed by demons, we ought to heal them in Christ's name. But in many cases, the only way to cure a witch is with fire (although decapitation and hanging works)

Allow me to explain Luke 22:36 (The part where he tells them to get swords, they do, and he says good that is enough) Then when Peter strikes the servant with the men coming to arrest him, he doesn't say, "Drop your sword" he says, "Put it back into its place." meaning that Christ acknowledges that swords have a place and a use, but he didn't want his followers to have them to defend him (He wanted to be arrested because it had to happen for him to die) he wanted them to have swords to defend themselves as they went out to spread the word so they could get it out far and wide before they died (and indeed many of them were martyred)

Answering the last point first - the Christians didn't 'defend' themselves, did they - that was the whole point. They 'turn the other cheek', and became martyrs - and THAT was pretty much what guaranteed the success of the early Christian movement... there is a certain political expedience to 'Passive Resistance'.

The passage you reference, Christ clearly requires the disciples to have a sword, purely so that he can perform the miraculous healing on the soldier - and for the political advantage of being seen to deliberately disarm.

He tells the disciples to sheathe their weapons.. he DOESN'T tell them to keep them.

I am constantly fascinated by your revisionist reading of the bible.

Regarding 'witches' in the bible... I don't think you actually even know what one is. 'Beheading' and 'hanging' work on witches, do they? Funny - you'd be surprised how many NON-witches that would work on, too.

So - from scripture, my friend... why don't you explain what a 'witch' is?

I rather suspect that your desire for a 'violent' god has blinded you to the true nature of the 'Jesus' seen in the bible. I see no biblical evidence for an 'aggressive' Jesus. Not the 'woe unto the world' (which sounds more like prophecy), and not the 'clearing of the temple' (which - while an act of passion, seems to carry no implications of actual violence... unless you think he was mean to those poor defenceless tables...)

Am I not happy with 'how god is'? No. You want me to take it up with god... fine, how about you call a meeting, and we'll all talk it out... I'll be awaiting his call, shall I?

Yes, I should have made that more clear, but I think most figured that out, yah?

Well, yes, sexually, that is what I meant. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

So - acts of violence, or torture, for example... are okay, then?

What would you do if your son, aged between 14 and 16, got a girl pregnant?

KICK HIS ASS

Then call the cops cause he's 19.

I get the feeling that you're saying this because you can't get laid.

Though if this is highschool that you're talking about then from my recollection, at least 75% of the guys there were idiots.

Note that in responding to my criticism of using an unwarranted "MOST women are whores" Kahta pulls a figure out of his arse... Oh the irony.

And I think the girls who were trying to seduce VoteEarly where actually making fun of him... I mean, it makes more sense, doesn't it?

I get the feeling that you're saying this because you can't get laid.

Though if this is highschool that you're talking about then from my recollection, at least 75% of the guys there were idiots.

I think it's a lot more than 75%, and I don't think it's just limited to high school.

And I think the girls who were trying to seduce VoteEarly where actually making fun of him... I mean, it makes more sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, when I was in junior highschool, well I was a late bloomer, and guys would ask me out to make fun of me.

I don't think I know a single girl who would go up to a guy and just announce "Let's fuck" unless he perhaps looked like Johnny Depp.

I don't think I know a single girl who would go up to a guy and just announce "Let's fuck" unless he perhaps looked like Johnny Depp.
I know, unless it all happened in VE's head?

Well, except for Johnny Depp. :D He's so hot even my (straight) bf perves on him. :p

I know, unless it all happened in VE's head?

Well, except for Johnny Depp. :D He's so hot even my (straight) bf perves on him. :p
Maybe he thinks when a girl wants to study with him, she's really saying "I want to give you teh best blow job of your life" though all she wants is answers to the algebra homework.

Maybe he thinks when a girl wants to study with him, she's really saying "I want to give you teh best blow job of your life" though all she wants is answers to the algebra homework.
Yeah, it fits in with the general theme of paranoia.

I would do nothing. I would not have a son. My beliefs on pregnancy are moot simply because I have zero interest in the very prospect of passing my flawed genes onto another person. The number of hereditary conditions present in both my mother's and father's families are too numerous to laugh about, and then the number of hereditary conditions whoever the mother is would likely have. Simply put, there is no practical purpose for me to have offspring. Let's look:

- Costs enormous amounts of money both to 'woo' a suitable female 'host', and then to raise the offspring.
- I have never spoken to anybody thus far who says they would go through the whole thing again. It is a thankless task that creates infinitely more stress than any amount of meaningless love could possibly compensate. I still remember my mother crying as a result of yet another of my sisters' invariably stupid late-night ideas. Police brought her home many times...
- I hate children.
- I dislike the prospect of 'settling down' in itself.

Assuming for a moment I did have a son who got into that situation, though, I'd simply throw him out and leave him to it for the very reasons I wouldn't have him to begin with. I wash my hands of anyone who so casually throws their flawed genes around like that. That includes my aunt, who is a carrier of haemophilia. She knew this, yet proceeded to have children anyway. Both of them suffer quite badly as a result. Even after the first son was born, spending most of his early life in a hospital, she then proceeded to have a SECOND child, 'just in case' it didn't turn out the same. It did, incidentally. I haven't spoken to her for years. But that might also have something to do with the fact that she's pretty much the most irritating person alive on the planet...

What the hell are you? Some sort of nazi robot?

I'm a Calvinist, for us the main word that goes with God is "vengeful", or you could substitute, "hateful", "wrathful", "angry", "enraged". They're all good words.

Your god seems like a little insecure prick.

I'm Catholic, so I'll break it into stages.

1) Beat with left hand whilst clasping rosary beads in right
2) Wrap rosary beads around right hand and beat with beads
3) Grab by ear and drag to confession
4) Discoourage girl from seeking abortion
5) Sit down meeting with all parties
6) Explain to social services with my son has a broken arm
7) Havee them married ASAP at St Stephens (or equivilant)
8) Ensure both my son and girl continue to study

I'd hold a party to celebrate.

1) Beat with left hand whilst clasping rosary beads in right
2) Wrap rosary beads around right hand and beat with beads
Those two steps are the most fun, probably.
:D

Make my kids allowance go to child support and make sure he gets a good paying job to support his kid.

I'd hold a party to celebrate.

Sounds like the most reasonable thing to do.

1) I have a son?!
2) I got somebody pregnant?!?!
3) Shit Happens.

What the hell are you? Some sort of nazi robot?

I resent the term 'nazi'. I would not force anybody into my way of thinking, nor would I only target a single race.

I'd hold a party to celebrate.

organisms goals are to reproduce, and we're organisms, so that makes sence.

Not one bit. If your mother, a woman who was used to her father beating her, and did dumb shit to try to get attention (she cheated on my dad with at least 1/2 dozen, maybe a dozen, various guys) was running around doing dumb shit to get attention, you'd think she'd need (and deserve) more than just a light slap.

Indeed she hit my dad, threw things at him, she walked all over him because he let her, he didn't give her what she wanted. She wanted him to beat her senseless, she's obviously a major masochist, or something is wrong, I don't know.

Maybe for her, being beaten was the only thing she was used to and she couldn't accept he loved her and didn't want to beat her. (My dad thinks it's wrong to hit anybody, particularly women)

What makes you sure she was trying to get attention? Maybe your father is a good father, but a useless husband? Maybe she couldn't get what she needed? Ever consider that?

Also - what makes YOU sure she cheated? Did you literally see her having extramarital intercourse? At the moment - you are urging the 'beating' of a woman because you 'suspect' she did something you don't agree with.

Or perhaps - looking at your testimony about her father beating her, perhaps your father and grand-father efffectively TRAPPED her into a loveless marriage.. did you ever consider that?

And we ONLY have your word for it that your father DIDN'T beat her, or that he DID love her, even.

And, although you were there - you were a child... so your viewpoint might not have been entirely objective.

Please Note: VoteEarly is not here to respond to anything he previously wrote, nor will he be. To address anything to him now is pointless.

The original topic: What would you do if your son got a girl pregnant?

The original topic: What would you do if your son got a girl pregnant?

Hmm. Assuming I had a son, I would tell him not to do it again, teach him how not to do it again, and promise to punish him severely if he doesn't support the girl he just got pregnant. I wouldn't force him to get married, but I would make sure that he didn't just abandon her.

If any woman was going to abort a child of a son of mine, I'd do anything and everything I could do to get her into jail for as long as possible.

What if the girl claimed that your son had raped her? Then she would be entitled to the abortion.

(Please nothing about how you would raise your son better than that. I'm sure most people who have children that carry out sexual assault didn't mean them to end up that way.)

I know he's not here right now, but it'll still be here when he gets back and I am rather curious

Edit: He's not coming back? Did I read that right? When did that happen?

First, I would have to get a son.. Then, it would depent on what the girl does. If she chose to take an abortion, problem solved. If she don't, well... he better prepare to pay child support and stand by her, preferably help raise the kid.

If some of you come and say "Abortion is illegal", then I will reply that abortion has been legal in Norway since the 1970s.

He's not coming back? Did I read that right? When did that happen?[/I]
I know I'm being nosy (and off-topic - sorry), but does anyone know what happened to him?!

Edit: I'm referring to VoteEarly.

I know I'm being nosy (and off-topic - sorry), but does anyone know what happened to him?!

Who are we talking about?

I know I'm being nosy (and off-topic - sorry), but does anyone know what happened to him?!

Edit: I'm referring to VoteEarly.

I do believe he's Delete on Sight now. He's no longer welcome here.

I do believe he's Delete on Sight now. He's no longer welcome here.
What did he do?

What did he do?

Just everything. All his constant flamebaiting "Elect" BSery, and this thread, and other threads, and more or less everything he posted. VoteEarly was his third incarnation, and I suppose the mods just decided that he'd never learn to act properly and that NS was better off without him.

Just everything. All his constant flamebaiting "Elect" BSery, and this thread, and other threads, and more or less everything he posted. VoteEarly was his third incarnation, and I suppose the mods just decided that he'd never learn to act properly and that NS was better off without him.
He'll probably claim discrimination and go to another forum to bitch about this one.

He'll probably claim discrimination and go to another forum to bitch about this one.

Yeah, he did just that, actually. And Kahta was arguing the same thing in Moderation.