Failed expectations of Revelations

[Orphalesion]

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

The science says children are genetically wired when it comes to anything sexual, including fetishes so Ms. Cooper isn't following it.

Wait....so fetishes are genetically programmed into us from the beginning? Like the specific fetishes we have?

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, simplybill said:

There were two child custody court events: the original court decision that took the 12-year-old from her mother in 2019, followed three years later by the  ‘mutual agreement’.

We keep running into math problems. The divorce occurred in 2015, when Sophia-Ash was 12. In 2019, xe was at least 15 , not 12, when xe declined to return to the mother's home. (There's no indication in what you've posted that the father was holding his child prisoner.)

We don't how much time elapsed before the court hearing that ordered a seven-month investigation. Although it is not in your posting, the court very likely heard from Sophia-Ash regarding which parent xe preferred to live with. This is routine in contested custody matters when the child is old enough to articulate a preference. Fifteen is usually plenty old enough.

Everything you've posted suggests that the father was Sophia-Ash's preferred parent. In your view, how did the court err in its temporary order by opening an investigation while siding with the old-enough-to-drive (instruction permit at least in Illinois) child's preferred parent in the meantime? How did the court err in accepting the agreement of the parties as its final order?

How is this in any way comparable with forcibly removing a child from either parent, as in the other posters' examples?

 

[Piney]

19 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Wait....so fetishes are genetically programmed into us from the beginning? Like the specific fetishes we have?

Yup.

Kids start as young as 6.

[Piney]

16 minutes ago, eight bits said:

We keep running into math problems. The divorce occurred in 2015, when Sophia-Ash was 12. In 2019, xe was at least 15 , not 12, when xe declined to return to the mother's home. (There's no indication in what you've posted that the father was holding his child prisoner.)

We don't how much time elapsed before the court hearing that ordered a seven-month investigation. Although it is not in your posting, the court very likely heard from Sophia-Ash regarding which parent xe preferred to live with. This is routine in contested custody matters when the child is old enough to articulate a preference. Fifteen is usually plenty old enough.

Everything you've posted suggests that the father was Sophia-Ash's preferred parent. In your view, how did the court err in its temporary order by opening an investigation while siding with the old-enough-to-drive (instruction permit at least in Illinois) child's preferred parent in the meantime? How did the court err in accepting the agreement of the parties as its final order?

How is this in any way comparable with forcibly removing a child from either parent, as in the other posters' examples?

 

The age of choice in New Jersey is 15.

[simplybill]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

The science says children are genetically wired when it comes to anything sexual, including fetishes so Ms. Cooper isn't following it.

There may be a genetic component to fetishes, but acting out the behavior doesn’t modify a person’s genetics by changing a person’s gender/sex.

A part of Ms. Cooper’s legal agreement is that her daughter can’t transition without her permission. Transitioning causes irreversible changes. It appears that Ms. Cooper wants her daughter to be aware that no amount of fetish behavior, transition surgery or misinformation can change the fact that her daughter will always be a woman. That’s wise parental advice to a child who is questioning her identity. It isn’t a crime, it’s not child abuse, and certainly doesn’t warrant losing custody of her child. 
 

[simplybill]

50 minutes ago, eight bits said:

We keep running into math problems. The divorce occurred in 2015, when Sophia-Ash was 12. In 2019, xe was at least 15 , not 12, when xe declined to return to the mother's home. (There's no indication in what you've posted that the father was holding his child prisoner.)

We don't how much time elapsed before the court hearing that ordered a seven-month investigation. Although it is not in your posting, the court very likely heard from Sophia-Ash regarding which parent xe preferred to live with. This is routine in contested custody matters when the child is old enough to articulate a preference. Fifteen is usually plenty old enough.

Everything you've posted suggests that the father was Sophia-Ash's preferred parent. In your view, how did the court err in its temporary order by opening an investigation while siding with the old-enough-to-drive (instruction permit at least in Illinois) child's preferred parent in the meantime? How did the court err in accepting the agreement of the parties as its final order?

How is this in any way comparable with forcibly removing a child from either parent, as in the other posters' examples?

 

This may help clear up the confusion:
“Since this all began, Jeannette missed her daughter’s 13th, 14th, and 15th birthdays.”

You asked:

“How is this in any way comparable with forcibly removing a child from either parent, as in the other posters' examples?”

I’m still wondering the same thing. I think Piney and DR posted those examples in response to my assertion that we’ve entered a ‘new era’. 
 

https://www.iwf.org/identity-crisis-jeannette

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, simplybill said:

There may be a genetic component to fetishes, but acting out the behavior doesn’t modify a person’s genetics by changing a person’s gender/sex.

A part of Ms. Cooper’s legal agreement is that her daughter can’t transition without her permission. Transitioning causes irreversible changes. It appears that Ms. Cooper wants her daughter to be aware that no amount of fetish behavior, transition surgery or misinformation can change the fact that her daughter will always be a woman. That’s wise parental advice to a child who is questioning her identity. It isn’t a crime, it’s not child abuse, and certainly doesn’t warrant losing custody of her child. 
 

But like Paul said, the child was not forcefully removed and was informed of her opinion. 

 

[+joc]

41 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yup.

Kids start as young as 6.

I think that basically everything we do or think is genetically programmed into us via dna.  I don't think we have too much say over how our individual dna unfolds.  You might have an awesome head of flowing blond hair at 18 and then it turns brown and falls out.  They say it's hereditary.  Well, duh, but what do they really think hereditary means?  Hereditary is the unfolding of our dna and no one can really predict how that dna is going to unfold.

In the case of children however; one must ask the question, is it the  unfolding of dna, or is it simply Monkey see, monkey do syndrome?

[Piney]

Just now, simplybill said:

This may help clear up the confusion:
“Since this all began, Jeannette missed her daughter’s 13th, 14th, and 15th birthdays.”

You asked:

“How is this in any way comparable with forcibly removing a child from either parent, as in the other posters' examples?”

I’m still wondering the same thing. I think Piney and DR posted those examples in response to my assertion that we’ve entered a ‘new era’. 
 

https://www.iwf.org/identity-crisis-jeannette

A new era of what? Open mindedness and the world doesn't revolve around Christian lies and bull****?

In both cases I cited it was a "good" Christian mindset that created those atrocities. Those poor hillbilly children were judged by the shape of their heads compliments of a vicious conman who was part of the 7 Day Adventists. 

 

[Orphalesion]

28 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yup.

Kids start as young as 6.

Oh I knew the latter one. But I just can't wrap my head around being genetically wired to have a fetish for...well,  I don't want to get specific for obvious reasons.  let's just say it's a specific type of clothing. A specific type of clothing that has only been around since I believe Byzantine times.
I discovered that through a movie and a video game during puberty.

How did that get into my DNA?

 

[simplybill]

@Piney I looked back over my posts, and I don’t see where I used the phrase “forcibly removed”. Is this what you’re referring to:

“I don’t understand how your arguments apply to this woman having her child taken from her by the court. Do you honestly believe Ms. Cooper should lose custody of her daughter?” (Post 490)

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, simplybill said:

@Piney I looked back over my posts, and I don’t see where I used the phrase “forcibly removed”. Is this what you’re referring to:

“I don’t understand how your arguments apply to this woman having her child taken from her by the court. Do you honestly believe Ms. Cooper should lose custody of her daughter?” (Post 490)

If she was going to send them to conversion therapy? Yes.

[simplybill]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

If she was going to send them to conversion therapy? Yes.

I don’t see a reference to conversion therapy in either of the articles that I posted.
 

Is this what you’re referring to? 

“But the thing that I clearly am not complying with is this concept that good parenting means that you affirm a child’s claim that there is something wrong with their body. I’m not willing to do that. I don’t think that’s good parenting.”

[Piney]

22 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Oh I knew the latter one. But I just can't wrap my head around being genetically wired to have a fetish for...well,  I don't want to get specific for obvious reasons.  let's just say it's a specific type of clothing. A specific type of clothing that has only been around since I believe Byzantine times.
I discovered that through a movie and a video game during puberty.

How did that get into my DNA?

 

I don't blame you. But my gay uncle and his drag queen husband were my relative caregivers for years so I do understand. I also studied autism in great detail and worked with autistic children. Fetishes are common among people on the spectrum. I was instructed to look for them and make sure they weren't dangerous. 

It's hard to explain the exact psychology behind it but I've seen children "stimming" as young as 6 which is way before puberty.

[Piney]

1 minute ago, simplybill said:

I don’t see a reference to conversion therapy in either of the articles that I posted.
 

Is this what you’re referring to? 

“But the thing that I clearly am not complying with is this concept that good parenting means that you affirm a child’s claim that there is something wrong with their body. I’m not willing to do that. I don’t think that’s good parenting.”

No, they are avoiding that part, but it's certainly implied.

[simplybill]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

No, they are avoiding that part, but it's certainly implied.

Transition therapy wasn’t implied anywhere in the two articles I posted.

This is Ms. Cooper’s view on gender dysphoria:

“[S]he acknowledged that she may have commented in Sophia’s presence about news stories regarding teenagers who seek to transition, expressing her view that many of these kids just need to find a way to become comfortable with their bodies and find people who appreciated their unique personalities - not to identify outside of their sex”.

 

That’s a legitimate parental concern, considering the irreversible changes caused by transition therapy.

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

A new era of what?

A new era of forced compliance in public discourse. The following quote is a good description of where we are now. 
 

“In what sense, then, are we being sovietized? I came to the conclusion when I traveled in what was then the Eastern Bloc that the ubiquitous propaganda was not intended to persuade, much less to inform, but to humiliate; for citizens had not merely to avoid contradicting it in public, but actually to agree with it in public. 

Therefore, from the point of view of the ruling power, the less true and more outrageously false the propaganda was, the better. For to force people to assent to propositions that are outrageously false, on pain of losing their livelihoods or worse, was to crush them morally and psychologically, and thus make them docile, easily manipulated, and complicit in their own enslavement. Increasingly in our daily lives we find ourselves in analogous situations."

Theodore Dalrymple in "The Soviet Way."

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, simplybill said:

This may help clear up the confusion:
“Since this all began, Jeannette missed her daughter’s 13th, 14th, and 15th birthdays.”

I was relying on this from the first story you posted:

So that is incorrect it now seems. Apparently Sophia-Ash was born in August 2006, and is now 16 years old. So, last year at the time of the court's final order, xe was 14 or 15. That's still easily old enough for the court to ask which parent xe preferred to have custody, and you've yet to explain why the court ought not to have accepted the agreement of the parties which was presumably consistent with that preference.

You would prefer that we focus on the court's temporary order issued when Sophia-Ash was 13? (In the second posted version of the story, the crtitical custodial visit occurred in late July 2019 and Sophia-Ash's birthday is in August - so in court at age 13 or very close to it.) That's still old enough, IMO, for the court reasonably to give some weight to the preference of the child and recognition of reported unease when issuing a temporary order (which no doubt was in effect longer than expected in some part because of the COVID crisis of 2020-21).

Anyway, thank you for helping to clear up the age discrepancy between the two versions of the story.

[simplybill]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

…you've yet to explain why the court ought not to have accepted the agreement of the parties which was presumably consistent with that preference.

This is what I’m concerned about:

“Under the terms of the final agreement, Sophia is to remain in her father’s custody, with no visitation rights for Jeannette without a court order or unless her ex-husband agrees. Despite repeated requests by Jeannette to see her daughter, he hasn’t.”

The court-ordered investigation found no evidence of abuse, and yet Ms. Cooper’s ex-husband has continually denied her visits with their daughter.

If Sophia herself had objected to the visitations, it certainly would have been brought to light in the investigation and noted in the public record. And, I’d say it certainly would’ve made headlines in the Left-wing media news outlets who would no doubt attempt to paint Ms. Cooper as ‘transphobic’, which is obviously not the case.

[Piney]

57 minutes ago, simplybill said:

A new era of forced compliance in public discourse. The following quote is a good description of where we are now. 
 

“In what sense, then, are we being sovietized? I came to the conclusion when I traveled in what was then the Eastern Bloc that the ubiquitous propaganda was not intended to persuade, much less to inform, but to humiliate; for citizens had not merely to avoid contradicting it in public, but actually to agree with it in public. 

Therefore, from the point of view of the ruling power, the less true and more outrageously false the propaganda was, the better. For to force people to assent to propositions that are outrageously false, on pain of losing their livelihoods or worse, was to crush them morally and psychologically, and thus make them docile, easily manipulated, and complicit in their own enslavement. Increasingly in our daily lives we find ourselves in analogous situations."

Theodore Dalrymple in "The Soviet Way."

And trying to instil a fascist Christian Theocracy is better right?

So what does this have to do with a satire plagiarizing Daniel and aimed at a Roman institution, which is what this topic is about?

Edited December 10, 2022 by Piney
The End Times is for hopeless losers

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, simplybill said:

This is what I’m concerned about:

“Under the terms of the final agreement, Sophia is to remain in her father’s custody, with no visitation rights for Jeannette without a court order or unless her ex-husband agrees. Despite repeated requests by Jeannette to see her daughter, he hasn’t.”

The court-ordered investigation found no evidence of abuse, and yet Ms. Cooper’s ex-husband has continually denied her visits with their daughter.

If Sophia herself had objected to the visitations, it certainly would have been brought to light in the investigation and noted in the public record. And, I’d say it certainly would’ve made headlines in the Left-wing media news outlets who would no doubt attempt to paint Ms. Cooper as ‘transphobic’, which is obviously not the case.

Your also posting one sided bias articles from neocon sites.

Where's a article stating the other side? 

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

So what does this have to do with 

What does this have to do with the topic?

I was pointing out in my earlier posts that many of the biblical conditions for the appearance of the Antichrist and the ‘Mark of the Beast’ are currently appearing in real life. Among other signs, there’s a grassroots movement in Israel to begin construction of the third Temple, technology is available for cashless sales transactions, and public discourse is increasingly subject to immediate praise or condemnation depending on the whims of powerful social ‘influencers’. Seeing as how our current Administration seems to have great admiration for China, it’s possible that their Social Credit System will become a reality here in the USA also. 

It appears that Ms. Cooper is being judged for her socially unacceptable opinions, rather than for abusive or dangerous behaviors that normally lead to loss of parental custodial rights. Apparently the Judicial branch of the state of Illinois has already implemented a type of Social Credit System without any input from the Legislative branch.

Re: China’s SCS:

”Once implemented, the system will manage the rewards and punishments for businesses, institutions and individuals on the basis of their economic and personal behavior. Punishments for poor social credit include increased audits and government inspections for businesses, reduced employment prospects, travel bans, exclusion from private schools, slow internet connection, exclusion from high-prestige work, exclusion from hotels and public shaming. Rewards for positive social credit include less frequent inspections and audits for businesses, fast-tracked approvals for government services, discounts on energy bills, being able to rent bikes and hotels without payment of a deposit, better interest rates at banks and tax breaks.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

 

Where's a article stating the other side? 

Apparently the Leftist media outlets have realized that Ms. Cooper’s logic is irrefutable.

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, simplybill said:

What does this have to do with the topic?

I was pointing out in my earlier posts that many of the biblical conditions for the appearance of the Antichrist and the ‘Mark of the Beast’ are currently appearing in real life. Among other signs, there’s a grassroots movement in Israel to begin construction of the third Temple, technology is available for cashless sales transactions, and public discourse is increasingly subject to immediate praise or condemnation depending on the whims of powerful social ‘influencers’. Seeing as how our current Administration seems to have great admiration for China, it’s possible that their Social Credit System will become a reality here in the USA also. 

It appears that Ms. Cooper is being judged for her socially unacceptable opinions, rather than for abusive or dangerous behaviors that normally lead to loss of parental custodial rights. Apparently the Judicial branch of the state of Illinois has already implemented a type of Social Credit System without any input from the Legislative branch.

Re: China’s SCS:

”Once implemented, the system will manage the rewards and punishments for businesses, institutions and individuals on the basis of their economic and personal behavior. Punishments for poor social credit include increased audits and government inspections for businesses, reduced employment prospects, travel bans, exclusion from private schools, slow internet connection, exclusion from high-prestige work, exclusion from hotels and public shaming. Rewards for positive social credit include less frequent inspections and audits for businesses, fast-tracked approvals for government services, discounts on energy bills, being able to rent bikes and hotels without payment of a deposit, better interest rates at banks and tax breaks.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

Errrrrrrrr.....It wad a "prophecy" for the times it was written and doesn't apply to the U.S.

13 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Apparently the Leftist media outlets have realized that Ms. Cooper’s logic is irrefutable.

I have the feeling there was a conversion therapy issue and I don't think "The Left" even knows of the issue.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

11 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Oh I knew the latter one. But I just can't wrap my head around being genetically wired to have a fetish for...well,  I don't want to get specific for obvious reasons.  let's just say it's a specific type of clothing. A specific type of clothing that has only been around since I believe Byzantine times.
I discovered that through a movie and a video game during puberty.

How did that get into my DNA?

 

Conversely, I would love to know where my fetish for bare feet came from. Saying “quirk of genetics” works as well as anything else.