Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by moonshadow »

Dust wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 2:07 am I'm not from Tennessee, but I've been there. Much of it is very nice. Some great people. Beautiful part of the country. I doubt anyone there is any more inbred than the various royal families of Europe
Well, if you don't like muffled speech, closed one sided debates, and power hungry "moral police" than you won't like Tennessee... they're one step away from burning books down there.... Their legislature only allows local governing autonomy when that governing municipality is promoting right wing "morals" and dogma, but quick to restrict any progressive or dare I say, "left wing" talk.

A word advice to both left and right wing individuals, "birds can't fly with only one wing".

I'm betting Governor Lee would ban this website and all skirt wearing men if he could. This thread would be illegal out right.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
Uncle Al
Moderator
Posts: 3861
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:07 pm
Location: Duncanville, TX USA

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by Uncle Al »

This topic has drifted back and forth, so many times....... :twisted: ......

Can we move forward, learning from the mistakes of others :?:

Can we all agree to disagree on/in this thread and let it die out on its own :?:

The overt sensitivity to "words" is what will bring an end to society as we know it.

I have never received a medal or ribbon for participation in anything.

If I did a good job, that I was satisfied with, I won my 'personal' goals.
What more could you ask for :?:

This is a good example of "The glass is half empty" vs "The glass is half full"
( Pessimist = empty, Optamist = full )

Again, can we let this thread/topic die out :?:

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Kilted Organist/Musician
Grand Musician of the Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. of Texas 2008-2009, 2015-2016,
2018-202 ? (and the beat goes on ;) )
When asked 'Why the Kilt?'
I respond-The why is F.T.H.O.I. (For The H--- Of It)
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by crfriend »

Uncle Al wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:51 pmThis is a good example of "The glass is half empty" vs "The glass is half full"
( Pessimist = empty, Optamist = full )
You're missing the engineer's perspective: "The glass is twice as large as it needs to be."
Again, can we let this thread/topic die out :?:
Yes, if all it's going to do is cause angst and distress, let's let it go.

I am as close to the antithesis of PC as one can get, but understand angst, and if that's all that's happening then it's definitely time to drop it.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by moonshadow »

Uncle Al wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:51 pm Again, can we let this thread/topic die out
ok!

You da boss
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by Kirbstone »

Well here's an example of a glass that is definitely full and the size of that glass is just right for the job.

A glorious sip would be in order....

Now, a genii fresh out of the lamp offered Paddy two wishes. 'Forr me furrst wish, I'd luyke an ever-lastin' puynt o' Guinness', whereupon the genii produced one straight away and Paddy took several gulps of it.

When he was nearly at the bottom the genii asked him what he'd like for his second wish and Paddy said without hesitation: 'Uy'd luyke de sayme agin, please!'

Tom
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Carl said,
Nope. It guarantees freedom "of" religion, and prohibits the establishment of a State religion. Only one Constitution in the world has guaranteed a freedom from religion, and that was the one of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.

In addition, while it may be a common belief, it is not accurate to say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, much less that we are such a nation. The majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christians; there was quite a bit of diversity in their religious beliefs. The largest percentage of them were Deists; that is, those who believe that there is no God outside of the totality of creation. Or in modern parlance, the Universe. For the record, I learned this in 6th or 7th grade from the books in my school library that I used for reference in one of the papers I wrote for my History class.

They were also heavily influenced by the ideas embodied in The Enlightenment. Interestingly, those ideas were originated by Native Americans; talk about philosophical ping pong. I recently learned this very interesting bit of history from The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity by Graeber and Wenbrow. It was reviewed by The Atlantic magazine and highly recommended by a friend of mine. I've only gotten a few chapters into it because it is a book that I feel has to be read one chapter at a time. Its concepts are that profound.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by crfriend »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:07 amSupreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.
In theory, yes. However, in practise, no. That's not how it works, else we'd not be awash in ignorant commentary from Deuteronomy and the Southern Baptist Convention wouldn't be calling the shots in elections. Thwe simple fact is that the United States is more awash in religion than it is with guns, and it's easier to abuse the former than the latter because there are laws about the latter.

I'm fairly certain that none of the Founding Fathers would recognise the modern United States as the country they helped set up. They did the best they could with what they had at the time -- and they did a pretty decent job of it. But it would have been nice if some random time-traveller could have brought a few of them forward by 250 years and show them the fruits of their labours before taking them home. Contemplate how short a conversation between George Washington and Donald Trump would have been.

Face it, the Republic fell a couple of decades ago -- and it's not coming back. The old rules no longer apply. It's now adapt or perish -- and the main reason I never bred.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Dust
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:03 pm

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by Dust »

Uncle Al wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:51 pm The overt sensitivity to "words" is what will bring an end to society as we know it.
This was part of my point about disagreeableness being a good thing.
Pdxfashionpioneer wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:07 am Carl said,
Nope. It guarantees freedom "of" religion, and prohibits the establishment of a State religion. Only one Constitution in the world has guaranteed a freedom from religion, and that was the one of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the clause prohibiting the establishment of a State religion also prohibits the State from supporting, let alone requiring, specific religious practices and doctrines, such as Christian prayer in schools. So, the US Constitution very clearly gives us freedom from religion.

In addition, while it may be a common belief, it is not accurate to say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, much less that we are such a nation. The majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christians; there was quite a bit of diversity in their religious beliefs. The largest percentage of them were Deists; that is, those who believe that there is no God outside of the totality of creation. Or in modern parlance, the Universe. For the record, I learned this in 6th or 7th grade from the books in my school library that I used for reference in one of the papers I wrote for my History class.
You are right that a number of the big name founders of this country were deists, rather than Christians. (We straight up discussed this stuff in public school American history classes.) Percentages would be nearly impossible to come by, however, both from not knowing the inner thoughts of many, to the question of who to count. I imagine more of the guys who carried muskets in the Revolutionary War were Christians, while the intellectuals drafting the founding documents had a higher percentage of deists.

My understanding of deist beliefs was more along the line of there being a singular supreme being that created everything but isn't very involved now. Not so much a reverence for the universe. I'm sure it varied a lot even then. Some were also freemasons, which is another discussion, but related.

At the time of the founding (and when the Bill of Rights was passed), at least one state (Massachusetts, I think) had a state religion. This was not seen to be in conflict with the First Amendment at the time. I believe Maryland was the first to put freedom of religion into law. It was put in place by a shrinking (percentage wise) Catholic majority, while it was still a colony.

Now if, as you claim, the state cannot support religious practices at all under the First Amendment, how does that square with circumcision (a religious practice for Jews and Muslims) and abortion (claimed as a rite by satanists) being paid for by the government under the guise of medical care? While I wish both would go away, clearly it's not that cut and dry. The Supreme Court has always tried to take a more nuanced position than what you describe, one that has shifted a bit over the years.

Some lawyers have tried (generally unsuccessfully) to argue that war memorials with Christian symbolism have to come down. Or that a Christian who works for a public school can't be seen praying while on school property. This is obvious nonsense. But where to draw the line between that and the state mandating religious practices or paying for the construction of new churches or mosques (as has been done in other countries) is kind of fuzzy, and likely up for debate. How is it we have chapels in most public airports in the US? What sort of taxes or tax breaks can be applied to religious institutions? Either could be seen as a problem.
crfriend wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:25 pm In theory, yes. However, in practise, no. That's not how it works, else we'd not be awash in ignorant commentary from Deuteronomy and the Southern Baptist Convention wouldn't be calling the shots in elections. The simple fact is that the United States is more awash in religion than it is with guns, and it's easier to abuse the former than the latter because there are laws about the latter.
We have both a freedom to practice religion, and a freedom to talk about it. Positively or negatively. We can debate religion right along with everything else.

Freedom of speech sometimes means speech that is stupid, offensive, and wrong. But we are also free to call it out if we see it that way. And freedom of religion does not mean that religious leaders can't have influence, just like anyone else. There are leaders with cult like followings, both religious and secular, that I would rather no one listened to, but I can't stop them. I can try to convince their followers to stop following them. But the government can't shut the leader down, unless they do something illegal. And being ignorant isn't illegal.
rivegauche
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by rivegauche »

Dust's post was interesting. People have indeed every right to be religious extremists. Freedom to believe in supernatural beings is fine. The problem arises when the extremists start to impose their strange restrictions on other people, but their choices of rules is very, very selective - they ignore the ones they might find inconvenient. The biblical prohibition on a man wearing a woman's garment is there, loud and clear in Deuteronomy 22,5. Other verses in the same chapter say that if you build a house it must have battlements (22,8), the wearing of garments of mixed fibres is prohibited (22,11) and you must also have fringes at the corners of your garments (22,12). It then embarks on a range of incomprehensible tirades involving virgins. But for me the last verse (22,30) is the most interesting in the context of this chapter: A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.

So after all this the bible regards it as normal for a man to wear a skirt!

On the other hand, in a 2022 context this could mean don't find out where your father has hidden his skirts,
User avatar
r.m.anderson
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2601
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:25 pm
Location: Burnsville MN USA

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by r.m.anderson »

Hear Ye - Hear Ye -

Something got lost in the translation over 2 + millennium ago and the writers scribes and all those editors are no longer around to finish/define their opus grande !

So what part is not understood about a loin cloth - a robe - and swaddling clothes etc.

There was an interesting documentary on TV a few years ago - "Who wrote the Bible" that did a fair job of explaining the who wrote the bible on scrolls -
but not so much about the translated meaning of the content.
"YES SKIRTING MATTERS"!
"Kilt-On" -or- as the case may be "Skirt-On" !
WHY ?
Isn't wearing a kilt enough?
Well a skirt will do in a pinch!
Make mine short and don't you dare think of pinching there !
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by moonshadow »

Dust wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:49 am Now if, as you claim, the state cannot support religious practices at all under the First Amendment
I disagree with the claim, and I believe that's how states like Massachusetts may have gotten away with it back in the day... the first amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It doesn't say anything about the individual states.

In the modern day I'd argue that it's the 14th amendment's equal protection clause that actually protects individual religious freedom, at least where the states and local governments are concerned...

Granted, the current SCOTUS and pretty much every legal and constitutional expert would say that the 1st amendment protects individual religious freedom, but I'm not so sure it would have been interpreted as such during the early days of the republic.

And while I understand many of the founders seemed to hold eclectic religious views, at the core I do believe most where of Christian persuasion.
, how does that square with circumcision (a religious practice for Jews and Muslims) and abortion (claimed as a rite by satanists) being paid for by the government under the guise of medical care?
Or state funding of religious [Christian] charter schools? That's another up and coming issue that Tennessee is trying to attempt, and I've heard talk of it in Virginia too. Strictly speaking, I see no federal constitutional issue here (as far as Tennessee is concerned) as long as the states are funding the earmark completely from state revenue and not from federal (congress appointed) tax dollars.

I can see an issue with the Virginia constitution where it states:

And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry


The way I interpret this, my state tax dollars should not support any religious institution. As it should be... the churches already pay no taxes, they can at least support themselves by their own memberships.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by moonshadow »

Also, the reason for this religious charter school push comes down to state politicians complaining about federal mandates and guidelines with regards to public schools (e.g. "CRT and equal treatment of transgender girls).

The solution for this is simple (are you listening Tennessee GOP?)... leave the federal school money on the table like they did with medicaid expansion. If a state self funds their schools, they can pretty much teach whatever the state dictates.

Of course they might miss those USDA dollars that make lunches free for every child in more rural, poorer counties.. but hey... trust in the Lord to provide. They're people of faith, let the manna fall from the sky.... now THAT'S how you do "old testament"... :wink:

Otherwise they might have to invoke an income tax.... but hey at least those evil liberals won't be brainwashing the kiddos. :roll:
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
Ralph
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by Ralph »

moonshadow wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:15 pm Of course they might miss those USDA dollars that make lunches free for every child in more rural, poorer counties.. but hey... trust in the Lord to provide. They're people of faith, let the manna fall from the sky.... now THAT'S how you do "old testament"... :wink:
Otherwise they might have to invoke an income tax.... but hey at least those evil liberals won't be brainwashing the kiddos. :roll:
Well, you certainly made short work of those straw men! Why all the hostility for religious people? For what it's worth, the rural/conservative/religious people in my area* neither expect federal money nor state taxes nor divine intervention to put food on the table. They either grow it themselves or they pay for it out of their own pockets, and go through church programs - like the ones you seem to despise so much - to feed those who can't make their own way.

* This statement is limited to those with whom I communicate. Obviously they don't speak for all rural, religious conservatives and I have no idea how the others think. Because they don't all speak and act and think as one.


Cheers!
Ralph!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by moonshadow »

*shrugs* If you say so.

Right now I couldn't care less either way.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 14433
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Teenager wearing a dress harassed by inbred Tennessee hillbilly

Post by crfriend »

Ralph wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:02 pmWhy all the hostility for religious people?
For what it's worth, and I cannot presume to speak for Moon, is that it may be down to the fact that we do not have freedom from religion in any meaningful way in the US. Everywhere we turn, it's in our face -- and it gets tiresome after a while, especially if you don't believe the dogma.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
Post Reply