Christians are some of the least compelling arguments for Christianity. I can't help but think some of those graduates were putting the Catholic Church in their rear-view mirrors on the way out of that auditorium. Good for them. There is no situation so bad it cannot be made worse by religion, and the Catholic Church is worse than most.
Hey American conservatives! 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 is what free spech is supposed to look like. A bigot freely made a speech you would be proud of and was not prevented or stopped mid-speech. The regular, decent humans, instead of cutting him off, walked away. The students, who saw the complicity of the administration, are going to do their own free speech and protest.
The kids are alright. Hell, many of the adults are alright. The NSGOP and their allies need to take a lesson from this Australian example.
Saying ""Bigot" is just code for "waaah! You hurt my feelings! Shut up!"" is just code for, "I have an overwhelming feeling that I have failed to live up to my potential, and instead of improving myself or having any sort of self-reflection, I am going to pretend that personal attributes, that are not a result of anything I have done consciously such as gender, sexuality and race, make me superior. And also I am going to pretend that my tiny, itsy-bitsy penis and balls are so small because it is cold out side, despite it being quiet warm. And that my insecurity about my own manhood can be easily masked by driving a cybertruck and talking about guns."
It's weird that anyone thinks that we give a fuck what an international criminal conspiracy of child rapists has to say about morals and ethical behavior.
Also seems weird that the media normalizes the Catholic organization (or the SBC) instead of reminding people every time they come up in a story. Maybe they can start the practice of putting the stats for each bishop or archbishop in parentheses (14 accusations, 87 assists, 200 million paid out) after their names.
Don't forget the most important stat: convictions. For the large majority of them it would be a big, glaring, goose egg; not because the accusations are unfounded but because of them hiding the ball.
I'm surprised no one mentioned that most children conceived through IVF *have* a father. It may not be their biological sperm-donor, but there is a man there to wipe their tears, tend their scrapes, celebrate their accomplishments, and help guide their development into adults. A man who didn't stumble into the role in a drunken stupor, or a hormone-fueled night in the backseat of a car, but a man who desperately wanted this child.
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God."
I didn't know that Adam and Eve got married. I'm such a stoop. :S
"every society on Earth at all times" has recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Inconvenient fact #1: Your religion didn't invent marriage and doesn't own it, Prune-y. Marriage existed long before Christianity came along. Inconvemient fact #2: Currently, there are over 40 nations on Earth that recognize marriage equality, so your man/woman only delusion fails.
Where's your outrage over the RCCs clergy and their endless molestation of children, along with the attendant cover-up/blame-shifting by Holy Mother Church? Not a word out of you about that.
In the late dynastic period, to put a leash on Amon clergy, some princesses became Amon's wives (grand priestesses in all but name). The title was passed from aunt to niece 😁
Well first, this is a private event at a private school. If the school had told you no, it would not have stifled public debate.
But more importantly, nobody stopped you from speaking by claiming to be sensitive. They just walked out. Them walking out /= stopping you from speaking. In fact in my opinion it's pretty much the perfect response, because it doesn't stop the speaker from expressing themselves, it doesn't prevent people who want to hear it from listening, but it does quite effectively demonstrate disagreement and disapproval, and it does mean that person isn't forced to waste their time playing audience to your speech.
Actually I kinda buy it. I'm guessing the person who did the review vastly underestimated the sh**storm it would cause and so didn't think about how the Unis rep would be connected to it. If they had, they might have been more forceful in telling him to change it. Or maybe they were aware, so they brought it to their management, and their management told them to allow it without reading it or thinking hard enough about it. Point being, there is plenty of room to see incompetence rather than malice in the Uni's decision.
Oh, the hubris of a man to stand up in front of a roomful of folks who just spend a large chunk of their lives earning a diploma the school decided to just give him because he spent money on them and tell those folks what to think, feel, and do as though he is better, more righteous, and smarter than they are. To tell women they don’t deserve bodily autonomy, LGBTQ people they don’t deserve to live, and to condemn a procedure because you don’t like the circumstances a fraction of the instances it is used, is astounding. FOAD .
No it’s really not, you are focusing on the wrong body. The fetus is using the pregnant person’s body without consent. The pregnant person has autonomy the fetus, not being autonomous, does not.
No there wasn’t. Each action, even during sex, requires consent and it must be ongoing. Consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy. And giving the man you have sex with consent to sex shouldn’t be the same as giving a fetus consent to use your body for 9months. To do this makes the fetus mere property of the man further devaluing and dehumanizing women and children. Add to that pregnancy is life threatening in all cases, believe it or not, some more so than others,.
So when the guy gives consent to sex, he is also giving consent to funding and labor requirements for pregnancy care, then for day care, then for pre-school, then K-12 education, and then a $400,000 contribution into a college fund?
Let me guess, sex is just sex for him! Nothing else but sex is implied by his consent to sex! Amiright or amiright?
"Marriage between a man and a woman. This was instituted by God. And that is it. That is the only case. Marriage between a man and a woman and a marriage between a man, a woman and another woman. Those are the only two cases of marriage endorsed by god. A man and a woman. A man, a woman and another woman, who happens to the first woman's sister, and a man and an underage war bride. Those are the only three cases. A man and a woman, a man and multiple woman, a man and a child war bride, and a man, a woman and her servant, and a man and a child who the man bought. Those are the only cases of God endorsed marriage. Why can't these woke social warriors respect the historical institution of marriage.
“”Did anyone leave with a better understanding of the Christian Gospel or of a life-affirming view of God?”
“Of course not. They walked away in disgust,”
Just because they walked out in disgust doesn’t mean they didn’t get a better understanding of the gospel. Because they did finally understand what the gospel is, and as all decent people should recognize, it is disgusting.
Yes it is. You look at it like Jesus made a sacrifice in order for all humanity to be forgiven. But it’s really that God is so sick and twisted that he requires blood and pain in order to forgive us for the flaws he created in us. Set us up for failure then revels in pain and murder. Add in all the rest of the requirements of the gospels and ew. Not to mention the actual definition of sin is not being obedient to god, abject obedience is not moral or good. There’s no good in the good news, hun.
Let's not forget there was no actual sacrifice; Jesus gave up absolutely nothing other than a weekend of his time. In addition, the sacrifice was supposed to conquer sin and death, yet people "sin" and die all the time. Nothing changed.
At every Catholic funeral I ever attended the priest reads the line about whoever has faith in Jesus will never die. And I find myself thinking, "Well, here's another case of someone who didn't have faith, ain't it?" O_o
If the Catholic teaching is anything like fundamentalist SBC, I believe the priest was referring to the so-called "spiritual death" of dying without Christ, but that's just my figuring based on what I remember of my own heavy indoctrination.
What a horrible, malicious condition to place on us, to gain this extra life.
Don't worry ericc's kid, you get my support whether you believe in me or not. And while I can't grant eternity, if I could, you would get it even if you didn't believe in me. For I am more benevolent than Yahweh, and I don't require you do or think anything about me in order for me to give my best for you.
It was supposed to conquer sin and death *eventually,* after the Second Coming and the Tribulation, when there would be this thousand-year reign of peace on a new earth inhabited by all of us "made a new creature" of incorruptible flesh, without sin. Until then, "conquering sin" consisted of us praying for strength to resist temptation.
Also, hell was at times spoken of as "spiritual death" implying that hell was the "death" that was conquered; and of course, believers never had to worry about that anymore, since when they died they went straight to heaven. Or they were "asleep in Jesus" until the Second Coming. Or something like that.
As I type all this out, I see again the unmitigated absurdity of it all. And I used to fucking BELIEVE this batshit cray cray.
This touches on something that confused me as a child. God was all-powerful, yet he couldn't forgive without pain, suffering, sacrifice and death. Why not? They always told me God could do ANYTHING.
In one sermon I recall, the pastor used an example of one boy who stole another's lunch or something. The punishment was a beating with a paddle, but the boy whose lunch was stolen asked to take the punishment for the thief, who came from a poor family where food was scarce. This was supposedly a metaphor for how Jesus' death on the cross for our sins made it "possible" for God to forgive us, since Jesus "paid the price" for our sins.
The metaphor didn't quite work for me, though. I understood the underlying principle, that one boy took the punishment for another, but that was one person, one time, one action. What about the next time? And what if not one, but three other boys had stolen something from the first boy? Would he take three beatings, or would one be sufficient?
I couldn't quite extrapolate the "one time, one person" scenario to explain "all sinners on earth, everywhere, since creation." To me that didn't quite make sense.
Eventually, I cobbled together my own idea that it was because Jesus was so holy, or something. That allowed me to put the question on the back burner, where I eventually forgot about it. An absurdity I saw as a child became normalized belief.
We understand the bad news. You don't understand omnipotency. God could simply [snap fingers], [give grace and make humans perfect]. And yet, your God needs a starship. Why?
The last ditch effort of the White Male Christian Right to grab dominance over the world. It is disturbing how many there still are in the world. These people need to evolve or just die out. They focus on the wrong things and try to get the rest of us to do that while they take over all the businesses and other parts of the economy, They try to scare everyone to strengthen the military. Their obsession with virile men who are God's warriors is a joke. Proud of the students that walked out. Stop the madness.
👆🎯Meanwhile they are screwing up the planet, letting polluters kill our only home, all because they are afraid to die, so they want to fool the J-dude to come back early, by trashing the planet. Making the rapture (which is some really stupid fan-fic) happen.
Like in the 3rd Rock from the Sun when Dick Solomon starts smoking and Mary Albright says, "You know, smoking takes years off your life." Then Dick takes a satisfied puff and responds, "Yeah, but they come off the end and they're crappy anyway."
Christians are some of the least compelling arguments for Christianity. I can't help but think some of those graduates were putting the Catholic Church in their rear-view mirrors on the way out of that auditorium. Good for them. There is no situation so bad it cannot be made worse by religion, and the Catholic Church is worse than most.
😄👍🏼
If it's unethical to bring a child into the world without a father in its life (IVF), then many abortions are, by his logic, ethical.
No, then it was unethical of the woman to have sex for pleasure.
It's also unethical of the woman to deny her husband, or use birth control.
It's also the woman's fault if her husband leaves her while pregnant.
If she has a miscarriage, well be suspicious and blame her for that too.
Basically, everything is her fault, always. Women in Catholic theology are damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't, maybe even literally.
They would reduce women to the status of property, just like the Old Testament mandates.
So, de Bruyn, who supplied the sperm? The sperm pixie?
I think I saw the Sperm Pixies play at the wharf back in '87. Killer show.
Best comment here! :)
That kinda smacked me right in the face too.
Karen, 🎯
🤔 I agree
Mandatory, even. By his warped logic.
Hey American conservatives! 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 is what free spech is supposed to look like. A bigot freely made a speech you would be proud of and was not prevented or stopped mid-speech. The regular, decent humans, instead of cutting him off, walked away. The students, who saw the complicity of the administration, are going to do their own free speech and protest.
The kids are alright. Hell, many of the adults are alright. The NSGOP and their allies need to take a lesson from this Australian example.
Yes, this is what they should have done to "Hairy Buttcrack."
Saying ""Bigot" is just code for "waaah! You hurt my feelings! Shut up!"" is just code for, "I have an overwhelming feeling that I have failed to live up to my potential, and instead of improving myself or having any sort of self-reflection, I am going to pretend that personal attributes, that are not a result of anything I have done consciously such as gender, sexuality and race, make me superior. And also I am going to pretend that my tiny, itsy-bitsy penis and balls are so small because it is cold out side, despite it being quiet warm. And that my insecurity about my own manhood can be easily masked by driving a cybertruck and talking about guns."
I was in the pool!
Nope, that’s your response to being called out as a bigot.
It's weird that anyone thinks that we give a fuck what an international criminal conspiracy of child rapists has to say about morals and ethical behavior.
Also seems weird that the media normalizes the Catholic organization (or the SBC) instead of reminding people every time they come up in a story. Maybe they can start the practice of putting the stats for each bishop or archbishop in parentheses (14 accusations, 87 assists, 200 million paid out) after their names.
Don't forget the most important stat: convictions. For the large majority of them it would be a big, glaring, goose egg; not because the accusations are unfounded but because of them hiding the ball.
I'm surprised no one mentioned that most children conceived through IVF *have* a father. It may not be their biological sperm-donor, but there is a man there to wipe their tears, tend their scrapes, celebrate their accomplishments, and help guide their development into adults. A man who didn't stumble into the role in a drunken stupor, or a hormone-fueled night in the backseat of a car, but a man who desperately wanted this child.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆🎯Like Tim Walz!
That was his argument, de Bruyn’s, though. He said that IVF created children without fathers. He was worried that was the problem.
Funny, that happens in the real world too.
Yes, happens much more frequently and in vastly greater numbers in nature.
Funny, you point out the pile of shit and they step in it anyway.
Wallow in it, even.
That was the speaker’s argument. That may not be your unfounded objection, but it was his.
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God."
I didn't know that Adam and Eve got married. I'm such a stoop. :S
"every society on Earth at all times" has recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Inconvenient fact #1: Your religion didn't invent marriage and doesn't own it, Prune-y. Marriage existed long before Christianity came along. Inconvemient fact #2: Currently, there are over 40 nations on Earth that recognize marriage equality, so your man/woman only delusion fails.
Where's your outrage over the RCCs clergy and their endless molestation of children, along with the attendant cover-up/blame-shifting by Holy Mother Church? Not a word out of you about that.
"Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God."
Tell it to Solomon! Or Betty Bowers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
Just to annoy you 😁
Technically, each of Solomon's marriages was between one man and one woman.
Sure it was: One man and THIS woman. That same man and THAT woman. The same guy AGAIN and ANOTHER woman. Yet the same dude and some OTHER woman.
Continue ad nauseum until you get up around 700.
But, in his favor he did NOT marry his concubines. They got paid per shtup.
700 times (300 concubines not included)
699. Egyptian princesses didn't marry outside of Egypt 😁
Or married fictional characters found in a book that came along long after Egypt was already ancient. ;)
In the late dynastic period, to put a leash on Amon clergy, some princesses became Amon's wives (grand priestesses in all but name). The title was passed from aunt to niece 😁
Canadian atheist fact bombs Christian know-nothings on what their own bible says constitutes a 'traditional marriage.'
Boswell's seminal "Same-Sex Marriage in Pre-Modern Europe" shows it was accepted way back when.
On Nota Bene* YouTube channel, one of Boswell's books was quoted as source in a video about homosexuality in Europe.
* History, in French.
Oops, they did it again
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Yup. This stuff is so easy to look up.
Christians can't be bothered, of course. Laziness? Or fear of what they would find?
They can't let facts impede their reality when they can invoke the angel "alternativefactel" instead.
"Does not apply" cuz jeezy says so, and his law is above man's. Our jeezy controls everyone cu he demands we persecute everyone..
Confirmation bias.
That' why they claim all that need is their Bible, and they don't even read that.
They leave that up to atheists. We're the ones who actually read it and understand it.
Why not both?
That definitely wouldn't have passed review, and likely would have resulted in his mike being cut off.
[de Bruyn] 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛’𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑦 ‘𝐼’𝑚 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒’ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒 – 𝑖𝑡 𝑠ℎ𝑢𝑡𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑒.”
Well first, this is a private event at a private school. If the school had told you no, it would not have stifled public debate.
But more importantly, nobody stopped you from speaking by claiming to be sensitive. They just walked out. Them walking out /= stopping you from speaking. In fact in my opinion it's pretty much the perfect response, because it doesn't stop the speaker from expressing themselves, it doesn't prevent people who want to hear it from listening, but it does quite effectively demonstrate disagreement and disapproval, and it does mean that person isn't forced to waste their time playing audience to your speech.
[Hemant] 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝐴𝐶𝑈 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑒𝑙𝑠𝑒𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒 𝐵𝑟𝑢𝑦𝑛’𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑐ℎ 𝑤𝑎𝑠 “𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,” 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑛𝑜 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑢𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡.
Actually I kinda buy it. I'm guessing the person who did the review vastly underestimated the sh**storm it would cause and so didn't think about how the Unis rep would be connected to it. If they had, they might have been more forceful in telling him to change it. Or maybe they were aware, so they brought it to their management, and their management told them to allow it without reading it or thinking hard enough about it. Point being, there is plenty of room to see incompetence rather than malice in the Uni's decision.
And christians THRIVE on disagreement and disapproval.
L'un n'empêche pas l'autre. See drumpster.
Far more people need to start doing this! Walk out. Leave the stone age speaker standing alone!
I would, if he started speaking against me, as he did.
Oh, the hubris of a man to stand up in front of a roomful of folks who just spend a large chunk of their lives earning a diploma the school decided to just give him because he spent money on them and tell those folks what to think, feel, and do as though he is better, more righteous, and smarter than they are. To tell women they don’t deserve bodily autonomy, LGBTQ people they don’t deserve to live, and to condemn a procedure because you don’t like the circumstances a fraction of the instances it is used, is astounding. FOAD .
No it’s really not, you are focusing on the wrong body. The fetus is using the pregnant person’s body without consent. The pregnant person has autonomy the fetus, not being autonomous, does not.
No there wasn’t. Each action, even during sex, requires consent and it must be ongoing. Consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy. And giving the man you have sex with consent to sex shouldn’t be the same as giving a fetus consent to use your body for 9months. To do this makes the fetus mere property of the man further devaluing and dehumanizing women and children. Add to that pregnancy is life threatening in all cases, believe it or not, some more so than others,.
Then since teenage girls can't consent to sex, they didn't consent to pregnancy.
So when the guy gives consent to sex, he is also giving consent to funding and labor requirements for pregnancy care, then for day care, then for pre-school, then K-12 education, and then a $400,000 contribution into a college fund?
Let me guess, sex is just sex for him! Nothing else but sex is implied by his consent to sex! Amiright or amiright?
Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
I don't. Care to enlighten me, oh master of carabistouilles ?
Management’s choice to give him an honorary doctorate brings shame on the university.”
I think being a Catholic university is plenty shameful enough.
"Marriage between a man and a woman. This was instituted by God. And that is it. That is the only case. Marriage between a man and a woman and a marriage between a man, a woman and another woman. Those are the only two cases of marriage endorsed by god. A man and a woman. A man, a woman and another woman, who happens to the first woman's sister, and a man and an underage war bride. Those are the only three cases. A man and a woman, a man and multiple woman, a man and a child war bride, and a man, a woman and her servant, and a man and a child who the man bought. Those are the only cases of God endorsed marriage. Why can't these woke social warriors respect the historical institution of marriage.
“”Did anyone leave with a better understanding of the Christian Gospel or of a life-affirming view of God?”
“Of course not. They walked away in disgust,”
Just because they walked out in disgust doesn’t mean they didn’t get a better understanding of the gospel. Because they did finally understand what the gospel is, and as all decent people should recognize, it is disgusting.
I think it's more likely the students left with a clearer understanding of the donation-affirming view of the Uni.
Well, that too.
Yes it is. You look at it like Jesus made a sacrifice in order for all humanity to be forgiven. But it’s really that God is so sick and twisted that he requires blood and pain in order to forgive us for the flaws he created in us. Set us up for failure then revels in pain and murder. Add in all the rest of the requirements of the gospels and ew. Not to mention the actual definition of sin is not being obedient to god, abject obedience is not moral or good. There’s no good in the good news, hun.
Let's not forget there was no actual sacrifice; Jesus gave up absolutely nothing other than a weekend of his time. In addition, the sacrifice was supposed to conquer sin and death, yet people "sin" and die all the time. Nothing changed.
At every Catholic funeral I ever attended the priest reads the line about whoever has faith in Jesus will never die. And I find myself thinking, "Well, here's another case of someone who didn't have faith, ain't it?" O_o
If the Catholic teaching is anything like fundamentalist SBC, I believe the priest was referring to the so-called "spiritual death" of dying without Christ, but that's just my figuring based on what I remember of my own heavy indoctrination.
What a horrible, malicious condition to place on us, to gain this extra life.
Don't worry ericc's kid, you get my support whether you believe in me or not. And while I can't grant eternity, if I could, you would get it even if you didn't believe in me. For I am more benevolent than Yahweh, and I don't require you do or think anything about me in order for me to give my best for you.
Any being, divine or mortal, that desires (much less demands) worship is not worthy of it.
If I have to believe to get "grace" then it isn't a gift, it's something I have to work for.
I guess no one believes then because everyone dies eventually.
It was supposed to conquer sin and death *eventually,* after the Second Coming and the Tribulation, when there would be this thousand-year reign of peace on a new earth inhabited by all of us "made a new creature" of incorruptible flesh, without sin. Until then, "conquering sin" consisted of us praying for strength to resist temptation.
Also, hell was at times spoken of as "spiritual death" implying that hell was the "death" that was conquered; and of course, believers never had to worry about that anymore, since when they died they went straight to heaven. Or they were "asleep in Jesus" until the Second Coming. Or something like that.
As I type all this out, I see again the unmitigated absurdity of it all. And I used to fucking BELIEVE this batshit cray cray.
*hugs*
Val, t'es de la bombe, bébé. J'ai enfin pigé. Le dieu de leur "livre" est un dieu Maya sous couverture. It's obvious the way you describe it.
This touches on something that confused me as a child. God was all-powerful, yet he couldn't forgive without pain, suffering, sacrifice and death. Why not? They always told me God could do ANYTHING.
In one sermon I recall, the pastor used an example of one boy who stole another's lunch or something. The punishment was a beating with a paddle, but the boy whose lunch was stolen asked to take the punishment for the thief, who came from a poor family where food was scarce. This was supposedly a metaphor for how Jesus' death on the cross for our sins made it "possible" for God to forgive us, since Jesus "paid the price" for our sins.
The metaphor didn't quite work for me, though. I understood the underlying principle, that one boy took the punishment for another, but that was one person, one time, one action. What about the next time? And what if not one, but three other boys had stolen something from the first boy? Would he take three beatings, or would one be sufficient?
I couldn't quite extrapolate the "one time, one person" scenario to explain "all sinners on earth, everywhere, since creation." To me that didn't quite make sense.
Eventually, I cobbled together my own idea that it was because Jesus was so holy, or something. That allowed me to put the question on the back burner, where I eventually forgot about it. An absurdity I saw as a child became normalized belief.
That's how their mind fuckery works.
We understand the bad news. You don't understand omnipotency. God could simply [snap fingers], [give grace and make humans perfect]. And yet, your God needs a starship. Why?
He doesn’t understand forgiveness either. You don’t need omnipotence to forgive someone. Nor blood and death.
A question for trumpistanis.
How are teachers getting medical equipment for gender-affirming surgeries when they can’t even get notebooks and crayons? 🙃
Are we really expected to believe that schools have fully qualified surgeons on staff when those schools can't even afford paper?
Q: How are Trumpanzees like teachers?
A: Teachers make no cents, and Trumpanzees make no sense.
Sadly, trumpanzees are like Alice in Wonderland, and are told to believe ten impossible things before breakfast.
I wouldn't trust some school nurses of my acquaintance to give kids paracetamol, let alone change their sex.
The last ditch effort of the White Male Christian Right to grab dominance over the world. It is disturbing how many there still are in the world. These people need to evolve or just die out. They focus on the wrong things and try to get the rest of us to do that while they take over all the businesses and other parts of the economy, They try to scare everyone to strengthen the military. Their obsession with virile men who are God's warriors is a joke. Proud of the students that walked out. Stop the madness.
👆🎯Meanwhile they are screwing up the planet, letting polluters kill our only home, all because they are afraid to die, so they want to fool the J-dude to come back early, by trashing the planet. Making the rapture (which is some really stupid fan-fic) happen.
you don't stand quietly while religious child molesting occurs, and you don't accept hate as a valid point of view.
period.
And you treat woman as equals because THEY ARE.
🎯❤️
The biggest cause of death is life. Don't take life too seriously, it ain't in no way permanent.
Eat well, stay fit, die anyway!
Like in the 3rd Rock from the Sun when Dick Solomon starts smoking and Mary Albright says, "You know, smoking takes years off your life." Then Dick takes a satisfied puff and responds, "Yeah, but they come off the end and they're crappy anyway."