Someone else once expressed this basic idea. He was equally wrong.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12:30
Both of these people, Nicole and the probably fictional Jesus, are saying the same thing: If you are not totally on my side, you are totally with the opposition, and there are only two sides.
There is a lot of injustice in this world. A whole lot of it.
None of us have a voice large enough to “speak out” against all of it (except maybe the moron in the White House and the only thing he seems capable of is “covfefe”). As a result, we sort of pick and choose the causes we want to champion.
Here’s one of my choices.
Nicole’s response to that was this.
Does this mean that Nicole hates women? Does this mean she’s on the side of paternalism? Does this mean that she is “supporting” the idea of men attacking women sexually?
Of course it doesn’t.
It means that Nicole doesn’t like me or Lisa. It means that she made a slimy, nasty comment about all the women who participated in the Women’s Marches just because she dislikes two of them. It was childish and silly, but it doesn’t make her an advocate for sexual assault.
And her position “speaking out against police brutality” isn’t due to her outrage over innocent people who are hurt when that happens. Her position is the same as it was about the Women’s March.
She doesn’t like the police because she keeps running afoul of the law and they keep telling her she can’t do stuff and that totally pisses her off. That’s why she cherry picks her sources and only uses those that are marginal at best and totally fictional at worst.
Nicole is wrong. There are way more than two sides. It’s completely possible to be opposed to police malfeasance and at the same time appreciate the position that my next-door neighbor, the deputy sheriff, finds himself in every time he goes to work. It’s possible to advocate for police reform and simultaneously appreciate Todd Pate.
And it’s entirely possible to be opposed to Jesus while not being a soldier for Satan.
The world is amazingly complex. I guess that’s too hard for simpletons.
Oh, my. I seem to have irritated Nicole.
If parents don’t “own” the child does that mean the state does?
And there we have it. More of that off/on, black/white thinking.
Nobody owns children. Not the parents, not the state, nobody. Putting the word in quotes doesn’t change the concept. [Nicole, you think a whole lot like Donald Trump. Are you aware of that? He thinks that putting a word in quotes means it doesn’t mean what it means.]
Nobody owns children, anymore than Joe owns you or you own Joe or I own my next-door neighbor. Dave and I own Frances, but she’s a cow.
This is really very simple.
And why don’t you go “look into [my] career history”? I dare you.
As far as my parenting is concerned, my son was never taken by the state, Nicole. Ever. We were never found to have neglected or failed to provide for our child, ever, which is what dependency is. Nobody ever thought for a single second that our son was not safe. Nobody ever was worried about our son enough to go to court and get an emergency order to take him away from us for his own protection.
We never forced him to live in a fucking garden shed, or shit in a bucket. He had his own room, with a real bed. We provided him with an education; we didn’t just make up a silly word and pretend to do it.
We traveled and he came along. We went to the beach and so did he. We went to Disneyworld and so did he.
When he became an adult, we helped him achieve his heart’s desire. He was successful at it. Let’s see if anyone remembers any of your children when they’ve been dead for more than a decade.
The story of my son is written and you know the ending.
The story of your children is being written as I type this. We’re all watching.
Joe, you deadbeat, I am an atheist. I’m not one bit shy about it.
You and Nicole just keep talking. People read this blog. Lots of people read this blog.
Ripples. . .