“But, in Ephesians 1:11, we learn all things that happen are because of God's predestined plan:
"In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."”
Bro C on Oct 18, 2013 at 20:31:26
“Just because God is omniscient and has a plan for an individuals life, doesn't mean he caused a particular horrific incident. It's no different than if you have a son. You may be confident what he will or will not do, and you may even instruct him, but that doesn't mean that if he gets hurt along the way, that you somehow caused it! The problem with Gods will in reference to us is, because His thoughts are above our thoughts and His ways above our ways, we have no way of knowing for sure what his will entirely is. However, we do know based on scripture and His character, he wont force another individual who has "free will" to rape another! The bible says that men are drawn away by their "own desires"!”
“I think we shoulf make men suffer the same way as women over the years!! This is not right for women!
Let's teach men a lesson and give them free stuff in exchange for sex. Then they'll know female plight. Make men understand how badly it feels to get gifts and then feel the obligation to perform sexual acts with a woman. Oh, the humanity!!!”
Bojestic on Oct 23, 2013 at 15:23:48
I, for one would welcome your proposal. I'll volunteer to be your case study!”
jf12 on Oct 19, 2013 at 22:33:17
“Or, pay for the man's dinner just for the pleasure of his company in ORDER to show that he doesn't have to perform if he doesn't want to.”
JaviiGamero on Oct 18, 2013 at 20:14:48
“Go tell that to women selling women to men, for instance it would include women working on government protecting the so called right of prostitutes to sell themselves.”
Craig Schultz on Oct 18, 2013 at 19:04:28
“Is there an age limit for one taking the lessons you speak of?”
“I don't see the connection you're making. What I got is:
1. If you question God's motives (or impact) after a negative event, you were never a "true believer."
2. If she was a "true believer," she would know God's motives (or impact).
3. God doesn't hurt little girls.
You can't possibly mean that this happened because she isn't a "true believer;" so, what do you mean?”
Bro C on Oct 18, 2013 at 19:10:50
“Its simply this my friend, the bible is very clear on God's nature. She asked, not me, why God would do this to her. He didnt! There is nothing in scripture that I have ever run across to indicate that God would rape a little girl. Like I told someone else, the more accurate question would be to ask why would he allow such terrible things to happen? God didn't motivate that, from a biblical perspective, these things happen as the result of mans own depravity, thats why I said a true believer would already know that. BTW, I think its perfectly normal to question God. Secondly, there is no way of knowing exactly what God chooses to do and when, but what we do know from reading is that, the behavior of hurting little girls is inconsistent with his Holy character.”
grock13 on Oct 18, 2013 at 19:07:42
“It's pretty simple. It's not God's doing, it's the alleged rapist doing. God gave man free will which means he or she is responsible for their actions. A character named Satan also exists and is more to be blamed for the temptations in life. If this in fact happened, it was do to temptation.”
hobiedan on Oct 18, 2013 at 18:55:08
“But, but God is watching over us grading our behavior so we can get into heaven or not. Was he busy paving some more golden streets when this happened? I am still wondering what God was doing when the two aircraft slammed into the towers. Must have been important.”
There is nothing wrong with this picture or the phrase accompanying it. If a person has an issue with this, they are doing nothing but projecting their own low self-esteem onto others. At which point, they have just visibly identified exactly what their excuse is.
Anyone on this earth who feels "bullied" or "fat shamed" by this is "bullying" or "fat shaming" themselves.
If someone posted a picture of a guy dunking and says "what's your excuse," people would say they are being "athleticly shamed" or "short shamed."
I say it again...if someone has a problem with this, they answered her question.”
actNatural on Oct 17, 2013 at 20:33:08
“It's a bad marketing approach. You protest, and project, too much.”
“No apology necessary. The original comment and picture were clear attempts at motivation for others. "Hey, if she can do it, so can I."
If some people take it as "fat shaming," then that's their own problem. As far as I am concerned, by making incendiary comments to this lady for busting tail to look that way after three kids and then sharing her motivation, she is being "skinny shamed."
Bullying a bully would still be bullying if there was any bullying going on right now; which isn't the case at all.”
actNatural on Oct 17, 2013 at 15:46:24
“There's a difference between motivation (you can do it too!) and accusation (what's your excuse?)”
“I have four friends who work in the industry (I live in Phoenix, AZ; second most popular filming location). All four agree on the subject: they don't care if they use them or not, as long as they get paid a premium for not using them. So, that's how they negotiate their contracts.”
bring in swat on Oct 2, 2013 at 13:10:55
“and they get what they deserve...”
Plasma002 on Oct 2, 2013 at 13:09:47
“Works for me... They are getting paid to have sex... Don't want to do that? GET A REAL JOB...”
“That's my point about this whole thing. If Native Americans have a problem, they should be changed, if they don't they shouldn't.”
Al Aquino on Sep 24, 2013 at 16:05:56
“But thats the point a lot of tribe leaders have a problem with it but they still wont change. Alot of native americans over all don't but the statistic has been called into question over these self identifying natives because it seems that the ones still in the tribes have issue with the mascots and names more often then then ones that are living out of the tribes.
My point is that almost no school has had the blessing of the tribe name they are using and in some cases they can't get the tribe blessing cause the tribe name they use doesn't exist anymore. ”
“Valid question, but, let me answer with another: Is getting rid of the Native American mascots so important that we ignore the potential good of keeping them?
This is another ESPN story, that I am actually really surprised wasn't linked in Reilly's, that sheds a bit of light as to what an actual Native American tribe thinks (in the end, I believe in the rights of a people to make a decision that impacts them; I disagree the decision should ever be in the hands of non-Native Americans):
“i just read what you posted and that tribe(or at least the person speaking for it) is against the mascots use outside of education (so against redskins and other professional teams) and is only for if the history is taught correctly. I think this question sums up the interview.
"How do you feel about the NCAA's regulations restricting the use of Native American imagery but allowing it when permission is granted by a local tribe, as in the case of Florida State University and the Seminole Tribe?
I think that's absolutely fine. That's basically what we do with CMU. "
I would be fine with it if each school got the tribe permission and worked with them. So its alright if used in appropriate context but almost all schools do not.”
“Everything you say is entirely accurate; many studies do show these correlations. But, at the same time the hypotheses drawn from them are so broad and wide ranging (which is what psychological stufy is all about), that causation can't be determined.
But the correclation is definitely there. With so many factors, it is so hard to determine which came first, or which has more impact; we can just tell it all has some impact.”
Al Aquino on Sep 24, 2013 at 08:16:44
“You make a good point but is holding onto native american mascots so important that we ignore the potental good getting ride of them.
There is a potental possitive to get rid of the mascots whats the nagative?”
“I would say look at the data for those "negative psychological consequences" while controlling for the use of the nicknames. That means, lets see what the studies that have nothing to do with the topic and see if there is a difference. One of the biggest issues with survey data is how accurate the hypothesis is based on the controlled data (and survey questions).
According to much of the data cited in this study, there is actually a higher rate of low self-esteem identifiers for Native American youth than most other cultures.
Off the top of my head, I would go as far as to say the low self-esteem identified in both studies has more to do with cultural factors, parenting, community concerns, edication, and peer influence than the use of Native American based nicknames in schools.”
Al Aquino on Sep 23, 2013 at 12:31:49
“The studies I've read are tied not to the names but the stereotypcal mascots
It is true that that low self esteem has to do with many factors and is higher in native americans but the studies by the APA seems to cover that from what i've read. Its seems that kids that had little exposures took test before then another set after and did worst after being exposed.
Plus I agree about peer influence is a big part but another study has shown that these native american mascots reinforce negative stereotypes in whites and that makes up a big part of most peer groups. If a majority of your peer view you through negative stereotype lenses then you will start to view your self in the same way
“He's right; and that's why he has this hail storm on him.
He even brought out the facts. Wellpinit and Kingston High Schools (91% and 57% Native American student populations, respectively) are both "Redskins." And the school officials at each have given the community, students, families, etc. the opportunity to voice concern and offered to change, yet, they haven't because it isn't offensive.
I'd like to see a study done to determine the percentage of different cultures that find it offensive. If the most offended are Native Americans, and it is a significant percentage, then change it. If the most offended are a bunch of classic yuppies, and Native Americans don;t seem to care (or take pride in it), then consider the issue close. Fairly simple really.”
Al Aquino on Sep 20, 2013 at 15:22:51
“What about research that shows the harm it causes.
studies shows that even if a native american mascot is veiwed in a positive light by native americans "there are negative psychological consequences "