Posts made by blablarg18

@lololulu19 said in Gay education and tax credits:

overpopulation

Disagree. Elon says that to have a spacefaring civilization, we need to be 16 billion & climbing.

Prosperity, tech & science all depend on something called "division of labor" whose breadth, depth & productivity rest on 2 basic factors, 1) how many people and 2) how free.

A large, unfree population won't have it, like China in the Cultural Revolution was poor & primitive.

A small, unfree population especially won't have it, like Amazon tribes living like shit.

The idea that small groups can maintain tech & science over time because they're just so virtuous & smart, is fantasy.

Libs get the fantasy from Star Trek. Some righties maybe get it from "Galt's Gulch" fantasy of Ayn Rand.

With small populations, "Lord of the Flies" is more like it.

Don't worry about "resources" because division of labor, tech & science under freedom solves that as well.

People are always saying "we'll run out in 12 years!!!!!!" and we never do, or/and we find substitutes.

Something becomes a "resource" when human ingenuity makes it so. (Rand right about that)

The entire universe is our future resources.

"Gay is OK" but we also still need breeders...lots.

That Westerners have lost freedom, faith & confidence & so are not breeding, is the real population crisis.

Societies that don't breed will fail - inevitably, it's math - to be replaced by the ones that do.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-64413242

Adam Graham / Isla Bryson, transgender rapist.

Was feared to be at Cornton Vale women's prison, where doubtless she'd rape again.

Woke-heads now attacking her womanhood with all the old, hateful, anti-Trans tropes: How can she know what she is, she's faking it, etc.

Nicola Sturgeon "There is no automatic right for a trans woman...to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate..."

NS continued, it's important that people "do not, even inadvertently, suggest that trans women pose an inherent threat to women", adding: "Predatory men, as has always been the case, are the risk to women."

Hardest hit: Victims of female-on-female rape & molestation, who just had their existence erased by Nicola Sturgeon.

Genuine question.

Viruses tend to evolve over time to be more benign - as we've seen with another retrovirus (RNA virus), covid.

Surely HIV has done it a little? surely it's less malign by now, than it was in the 80s and 90s when killing everyone?

If that's true: Why wouldn't people monitor viral & T or CD4 levels, dial up meds whenever they start to go wrong, but dial back (giving the body & the person a break) if they clearly go the right way?

The only good answer I can think of is, "Because that's too complicated for real life."

If there are other good answers, like "It was tried & does harm for reason XYZ", please inform me.

One BAD answer might be, "Because lifetime, full daily meds are better for Big Pharma."

Youtube Video

He admits FDA goes easy on Pfizer due to 'revolving door'. Key regulators think of themselves as future Pfizer employees.

He admits the revolving door is 'pretty good for [us]...bad for everyone else in America'.

P.S. No one's gaydar is 100% but he shows up on mine.

Yet another public vaxxer, Scott Adams, turns somewhat anti-vaxx.

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1617040271598055425

He looks at

• the boosters' not working against new variants
• the tiny, but growing group of vaxx "died suddenly"

and concludes: 2023 new situation where benefits no longer outweigh risks.

And when you see why, you see why.

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1617533688153096196

Why big shades & mask? even indoors, face never seen
Why insane security lining up just to block views?
Why does family arrive separately?
Why physical activity but no interview?

Some doubt it.

https://twitter.com/Censored4sure/status/1617562977305268224

Last week, sadly Diamond of "Diamond and Silk" passed away at 51.

At first, Twitter libs said: unvaxxed Trump supporter died of covid & deserved it hahaha!

But the family has either stated, or implied strongly that:

• she vaxxed
• died suddenly of a blood clot in the lungs
• no covid around
• making her yet another vaxx "died suddenly"

https://twitter.com/RSBNetwork/status/1616939259864272897

Remember, Trump came up with the vaxx - Operation Warp Speed - so many Trump supporters were/are pro-vaxx.

These injured or "died suddenly" people are getting awkward for him.

To Trump's great credit, he was never into mandates. Libs did all the vaxx mandates. Trump wanted people to have a choice.

Still, at some point Trump will have to admit he was taken in by the Big Pharma / Fauci / Dem "safe and effective" mantra, that has proven false.

@raphjd Like "Nazi" before it, the "white supremacist" accusation has been weaponized to where it no longer has meaning.

Libs throw "white supremacist" at anyone - Asian, latin, black whatever - that they want distance from, for any reason.

With these horrible mass shooters, libs throw "white supremacist" if it turns out the shooter's social media is full of pro-Antifa & anti-Trump. As a distraction.

But that's generalities.

I have no idea where this one's motives & narrative frame will end up.

In the meantime, I pray for the victims & all involved.

@eobox91103 Yes really.

@flozen Just a quick recap of the action here.

• Benedict dies
• You stamp on his grave
• I go, uh not bright
• Nudged a bit to explain, I point out he's a historic "Vatican 2" liberalizer, set TONS of progress in motion
• you melt down, throwing accusations at me - not just him - and in another thread entirely!

What I'm trying to say is: Color me impressed.

Bye now & God bless.

@ianfontinell Agree (see my earlier comment) that this has -nothing to do with gays- broadly, maybe shouldn't be in this section.

As to why post it anywhere? Also explained earlier.

As to gay v. straight phrasing.... it's to do with demographic norms. 9 times out of 10, the parents are opposite-sex / unspecified would mean exactly that.

P.S. I don't agree "gay" phrasing here is "very deceptive" since

1. it's literally true
2. UK or maybe Canada has had some reports of the opposite bias, pro-gay bias, molest-y rape-y gay couples left untouched for too long, as here in Clown World 2023, gays are sometimes too sacred to touch, local police giving out bad-speech tickets to people who say the "wrong" things etc.

@flozen As a wise man once said: Politics and Debate.

For example - are the charges even true? I'd welcome counter-info. It'd be great if this awful story turned out untrue. If someone knew this couple and said: No way.

Projecting there, check your mirrors before posting please.

Check them hard.

LOL

P.S. @MrMazda judgment call but just fyi, I didn't consider Gay News - and still don't - because what does this story have to do with gays broadly?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11658079/Gay-Atlanta-couple-charged-raping-adopted-sons-pimped-local-pedophiles.html

@eobox91103 "did nothing to stop" - On your own terms, ignoring anything I said: You just equated Benedict to all popes, conceding that he did no unique or exceptional damage.

I also can't think of any unique or exceptional (read that twice) way the Church damages gay people.

Sexual abuse? Yes that's bad, bad, gotta stop - and you concede schools do as much or more of it. Let's add that LGBT themselves do quite a lot. Bad yes, unique no.

Disagreeing that gay sex is good? That can't be the problem - because then I'd have to tell you boo hoo, grow up.

Especially nowadays, the Church's opinion on anything only affects people if they want it to.

And again, B16 (not 15) Ratzinger actually nudged things forward. The typical gay lib just isn't prepared to see or admit it; "Everyone hates me especially the Church" is too much ingrained in the gay-lib identity / tribalism / substitute religion. More here: https://community.gaytorrent.ru/topic/60694/the-libs-kooky-world-of-hate

@eobox91103 Again, I'm familiar with the "gay case against Benedict" and furnishing another side of the story.

Again, you're not mentioning his insistence that the gay person always be treated with respect as a person trying to live a life. In 1980s (height of AIDS) that was a signal for many Catholics to chill, get a tad more pro-gay or less anti-gay. Benedict among others, did that.

Sidebar - it's worth mentioning that traditional Catholic doctrine is, in their own view, equally hard on straights & gays ie. non-discriminatory.

Don't say "straights could get married" - because, in traditional Catholic doctrine, even properly married straights are not supposed to have sex UNLESS trying to conceive a child.

Yup. That rough. Single straights are called to celibacy, as are married ones who aren't intent on children. Their lusts & fornications, even with each other, are also disordered / sinful.

I'm not endorsing the trad-cath view, merely explaining. Traditional Catholics are mystified, if you accuse them of discriminating or being tougher on gays. "Everyone's a sinner. We're hard on everyone" mentality.

Overall - Benedict was a major, historic person in liberalizing the Church - and you're saying he did some sort of special damage as Pope.

I can't account for that, except as "Oh there goes the typical incomplete, parochial, gay-lib-tribal viewpoint again, example 1 million."

@eobox91103 small correction - I didn't say "at the Vatican", rather, "at Vatican 2" the big-deal, liberalizing Chuch council of the early 1960s.

Continuing... But in today's fractured world, I don't know what link/source you would consider valid.

Here's one:

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ratzinger-vatican-ii

I don't know about this magazine, merely that the link turned up quickly in a search for "ratzinger theologian vatican 2".

I know that as Pope, he repudiated none of Vatican 2 - merely said to balance it a little more with respect for tradition.

And I've seen people who followed his long career & read his books & articles over decades say, yes he was very much a liberal, then later dialed it back slightly.

So I believe this magazine's story - on the grounds that it's consistent with other stuff I have heard or observed.

Wiki lists it as a well-established "liberal Catholic" magazine............. for whatever that's worth

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1616697612043972610

@eobox91103 Nope! It merely says "Here's some other info / another story".

Reality is a vast mosaic, none of us get to see it all.

@raphjd I'm aware of the "gay case against Benedict" but gays generally know little of the wider picture, so here's a few points fyi.

As a young theologian he was the key liberal, yes LIBERAL, voice at Vatican II in the early 1960s.

Modern Catholic doctrine, insisting that gays must always be treated with dignity & respect for the person, even as doctrine still treats gay (and straight!!) fornicating lusts as "disordered" - That was him.

As time went by, he did become a "liberal mugged by reality" ie. more centrist or tradition-friendly as his liberal illusions were overturned. Sound familiar?

By Church standards, he didn't go far rightward. But the fact he made any rightward shift at all made his name poison to vicious Church leftists. Sound familiar?

He was mainly a theologian and tried more than once to leave Church politics or avoid being Pope. JP2 & others demanded that he stay involved.

The current papal resident, Francis, is a 100% Covidist-globalist-commie, beloved by Davos/WEF/Hillary types, tries to appear more moderate than he is, and election was/is fraught with questions. Sound familiar? (cough Biden)

People who follow this stuff say that Benedict was actually better day to day at hounding clerical pedophiles, while Francis protects most of them - while making a show of the opposite, pursuing his own opponents in a high-publicity, selective way with weaponized (or even faked) accusations. Sound familiar?

You can think what you want of course.

And I don't love Benedict. Nor claim to know everything.

As with Trump, the fact that I want criticisms to be rational & will speak the other side of the story, makes me a supposed "supporter" - Not really.

Stamping on Benedict's grave tho is in zone between Unseemly & Uninformed.

Benedict R.I.P.

@flozen Brave face but we both know that the fact you were stung enough to respond to me, is the high praise here.

Thank you. Glad I could teach you a moment & it prob won't stick, but let's hope.

Re: @raphjd, I took his comment as sarcasm against your commentary - but whatever, it's up to him & I don't really care.

Again: Benedict R.I.P. ..........and while we're at it, Cardinal Pell R.I.P. too - pretty weird story there, with his conviction & then it being all reversed out - the point would be, none of us know. I don't, you don't. Catholic "deep politics" is every bit as twisted & nothing-is-as-it-seems, as Anglo-American.