[rosekitten]

Taos, it's interesting that you mention the "health" concerns of not showering daily. Do you bleach your shower after you use it every day? Studies on topics like this tend to vary widely, but just as your doctor tells you that it's "dangerous" to not, studies I've read indicate otherwise, simply because of the amount of bacteria that lives in a shower.

[Little]

Taos,
Do a google search for "Georgia Law may make Miscarriages a Felony." The article I'm looking at gives you all the information you need about what miscarriages have to do with menstruation. Though this may not pass for quite some time, if ever, the people behind it are elected officials, which tells me this is something Americans WANT. That's a scary thing to me.

If I've met hundreds of social conservatives - hundreds, and I assure you I have - and each one has shown or expressed misogynistic views, it makes sense that I would avoid dating them. That's the question at hand here, right? My ability to befriend them has much to do with their extremity. Perhaps my extremity is a problem for them too, and that's fine. We're all entitled to our own beliefs, and to socialize with whom we please. I don't go through my facebook befriending only those people whose religious views say "atheist" or whose political views say "libertarian" or "communist." I'd be lonely. But if someone expresses views that I find no less than reprehensible, I will peace out without another thought.

My views are the result of a GREAT DEAL of research. Inclusive of reading the Bible. Abrahamic religions instruct their follows to do MANY things I disagree with. Follow one if you like. Like political views, I'll avoid people based on the extremity of their religious beliefs. They should be thankful, as any devout Christian knows, they shouldn't socialize with completely unrepentant and unsalvageable "sinners," and I'm a proud one.

[Little]

My father is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. "Converted" from being a Democrat earlier in his life. Has put great thought into his ideas. I love, admire, and respect my father, but not his ideas. He has remarked to me that the gays are why we're at war - God is mad. And that blacks are a different species than whites. Heck yes, I judge his beliefs! I find them inflammatory and wrong. But in his case, and in the cases of a select few of my friends, my bond with him is more important than his politics or religion. But I would NEVER date a man who had the same values. Because I would not want to raise a child with anyone who had them.

WC, I can only apologize for the Southerners. I love most of their ways, but there are a few surviving indelicacies that some of them refuse to let go of.

[Guest]

Little,

How is your, "If I've met hundreds of social conservatives - hundreds, and I assure you I have - and each one has shown or expressed misogynistic views...' different from stereotyping? And, of course, we haven't even consider whether you're assessment of members of the population to which you have been exposed is accurate. It is very common for prejudicial beliefs to skew our interpretation of others.


Take care,

Taos

[Little]

What does it matter if I'm stereotyping? Let's be real - we all do it.
If I still treat those people who have the views I dislike as people & human beings, I don't see the problem. I'm saving them from a friend or lover who would be regularly infuriated by their views, not trying to put them in jail or take away their rights. I'm even submitting to the desires of the country by saying if I disagree too vehemently with majority-elected leaders in the future, I would proactively LEAVE and let them continue to enjoy their view of government because it was a democratic choice.
If I'm so judgmental, aren't I doing them a favor? Nobody has a RIGHT to be my best buddy or lover. Let's say I put my judgement aside and dated a socially conservative, zealously Christian man. Let's say we got married and had children. Babies grow up and have to be taught things, and I would find it beyond inappropriate for my child to share the views of my imaginary husband (people tend to be more persnickety about their minor children than partners.) I'd be hopping the first plane to a randomly chosen country whose main language I speak (there are many) and effectively kidnapping my children before I'd submit to teaching my kids things I find unsavory, reprehensible, or wrong. It would be immensely unfair and wrong to do that to a father! But knowing that I'd do it in a heartbeat, I instead elect not to procreate with those people, or put myself into a position where I might be tempted to. It sounds more humane than judgmental to me.

[Guest]

Little,

I did as you suggested.

the Internet is a wonderful medium of idea exchange. But it is incumbent upon us to determine accuracy and validity of what we read. For instance, what in God's name does this mean: "This year the Georgia legislature considered a bill that would require women to prove their miscarriages..."? Did two morons have a conversation in a bar after work?

Little, this is unadulterated BS. To believe this you would have to believe that physician-patient confidentiality, a sacred tenet of American liberty, would disappear. Further, cops are required to prove probable cause before arrest. And each stage of the criminal justice system the prosecution's burden becomes more onerous. And we haven't even considered that "Roe v. Wade" is federal law, which supersedes state law, which means all states must follow Roe.

Little, we are responsible for knowing why we believe what we believe. If I want to believe that the suns rises in the west, it is my responsibility to prove that it does. Since we all know the opposite is true, I could find someone somewhere in cyberspace who believes the sun rises in the west. If I choose to believe the inane, I will suffer consequences of lost knowledge.

Little, think your belief through. How would such a law withstand unreasonable searches and seizures? How would this law withstand physician-patient confidentiality? How would cops establish probable cause to introduce such a case into the criminal justice system? How would a prosecutor secure evidence to prove such a "crime"? How would such an illusory law withstand Roe?

Good luck,

Taos

[Guest]

You can also look up Oklahoma passing a law last year that prohibits doctors from giving prescriptions for BC.
There is a war on women in the US right now.

Not allowing for BC is bad for women AND men. War is an extreme idea..........

[Guest]

WildChild,

I can't find such a law. And I doubt one exists. Not only would such a law be an invasion of privacy, but birth control is prescribed for reasons other than birth control.

For such a law to exist, it would have to target the medication. In essence, it would have to make medication illegal.

WildChild, see my post to Little. I just do not believe such a law exists as you have described.

There is no war against women in the country. For me to accept such hysterical paranoia I would also have to accept the our Constitution is no longer valid. Further, since federal law is supreme law of our law, I would have to accept that Obama, who is the nation's top cop and probably the most liberal president we have ever had, is going to unleash his US DOJ on women. Sorry, WildChild, based upon what I know to be factual, I ain't buyin' it.

WildChild, it is always a good idea to know why we believe what we believe. More importantly, we must assure that what we believe is factual, for knowledge is based upon facts.


My best,

Taos

[Guest]

BTW,

In one of my posts, I got this reversed: "Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church for his scientific research that proved the Copernicus' research that our solar system is geocentric and not heliocentric as was the position of the Vatican." Our universe is heliocentric, not geocentric.

Sorry for the mistake.

Take care,

Taos

[Little]

Taos,

Your saying my name over and over is an age-old tactic to try to make a person like you and thus sway them to your side.

Taos, I really dislike that tactic.

Taos, it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Taos, I am aware to whom you are speaking in each reply.

Taos, you even break up your replies into different posts so there could be no confusion.

I get it. When you're talking to me, you're talking to me.

Moving on ...

Politicians are passing laws that oppose the Constitution all the time. That's why the ACLU exists. Considering this is a forum that I run and that you are merely visiting, YOU might want to provide me with some proof that the Supreme Court has NEVER overturned a law for being unconstitutional? Something may be illegal or unconstitutional, but that does not stop another human being from acting out on it. It just means they will (hopefully) be punished later.