General Discussion

herding cats

(20,056 posts)

76. That pictorial content is nasty. However...

Fri Sep 4, 2015, 11:08 PM

Sep 2015

Unless she plans on seeking religious based annulments on her fist and third marriages and then remarries her second, and thus, fourth husband again within the sanction of the scriptures. She is a Christian hypocrite. If she's going to claim all biblical text should influence her life, then fine. All of it should, not just that which she chooses to adopt vs. that which she chooses to ignore for personal reasons.

The rest of the personal matters are between her and her version of God. Just don't bring your convoluted version of Christianity into the public if you don't want to be called out for being a hypocrite.

Realistically, any one of us can hybridize a religion to make it suit our personal desires and prejudices. There's no way that hybridization should become a legal standing according to the first amendment to the US Constitution. No matter how many fools we get to follow our doctrine. After all, fools are a dime a dozen.

Edited to add: She's a very ugly person in her heart as far as I'm concerned.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

111 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we stop slut-shaming and attacking the looks of women that we disagree with? [View all] arcane1 Sep 2015 OP

Thx for posting this n/t PasadenaTrudy Sep 2015 #1

To answer the question asked in the photo OhWiseOne Sep 2015 #39

Also I haven't seen pics of the husbands so Person 2713 Sep 2015 #45

He's not really bad looking, actually. BlueCaliDem Sep 2015 #80

A better answer is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. eom uppityperson Sep 2015 #104

My religion requires that I point out ... JoePhilly Sep 2015 #2

I pray that picture was not posted on DU till now. randys1 Sep 2015 #3

Fortunately, I had never seen the picture until I ran across that blog post arcane1 Sep 2015 #8

Seen some gnarly shit lobbed at Bristol Scootaloo Sep 2015 #10

Same, and it bothers the hell out of me. Lizzie Poppet Sep 2015 #33

Not one of DU's feminists 840high Sep 2015 #43

many of those mercuryblues Sep 2015 #55

For your info - i don't really 840high Sep 2015 #68

DU's feminists are pure hypocrites for not policing misogyny closely enough on this board? prayin4rain Sep 2015 #72

I have not seen even one feminist 840high Sep 2015 #75

BS there were SEVERAL posts arguing about not slut shaming Bristol with others arguing prayin4rain Sep 2015 #78

I'm glad there were posts about 840high Sep 2015 #79

You're forgiven for accidentally misremembering. n/t prayin4rain Sep 2015 #81

Hey - I'm pushing 80 - I don't 840high Sep 2015 #82

Pushing 80?! Well, heck, I can only hope I'm doing as well by then... prayin4rain Sep 2015 #83

I don't see anything wrong with calling out gross hypocrisy hifiguy Sep 2015 #4

So you agree as her looks have absolutely nothing to do with anything. randys1 Sep 2015 #5

looks should have nothing to do with it passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #42

Agreed. hifiguy Sep 2015 #46

Bristol was out preaching about abstinence treestar Sep 2015 #88

Couldn't care less what she looks like truebluegreen Sep 2015 #6

Enough already with the ugly comments. That is a form of discrimination. Dont call me Shirley Sep 2015 #7

This goes for both genders Xipe Totec Sep 2015 #9

Thank you! Also LiberalElite Sep 2015 #11

Yes, her features are the kind that make-up would transform. WinkyDink Sep 2015 #16

She is Pentecostal (Probably a Holiness variation) No makeup, no cutting of hair (except split ends) LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #32

Yes. Women have to be unattractive to be godly in such churches Maeve Sep 2015 #49

I think (if I remember correctly) so that the men in the church are not tempted. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #58

Men in such viewpoints are such weak little things Maeve Sep 2015 #77

That explains the birth-control clothing... n/t backscatter712 Sep 2015 #102

yes, she has the Duggar look - long hair, no make up. Liberal_in_LA Sep 2015 #71

Given the current situation, I think it's fine to point out the absurdity Vinca Sep 2015 #12

The hypocrisy itself is fair game, IMO. n/t arcane1 Sep 2015 #14

Of course! Cheers! nt wolfie001 Sep 2015 #38

Right or wrong, it's human nature. See Chaucer's "Prologue," in particular the Summoner and the Par- WinkyDink Sep 2015 #13

Yup. History of literature and art would be dead if it had to be "politically correct" delrem Sep 2015 #37

Yes it is human nature to laugh at and mock people we disagree with. Chemisse Sep 2015 #64

The mockery is of the behaviors. Not of the individuals as such. delrem Sep 2015 #84

We can - and often should - criticize objectionable behaviors. Chemisse Sep 2015 #86

That picture is deplorable. But... Glassunion Sep 2015 #15

Ha! Good one. jalan48 Sep 2015 #48

Never have, never will. Rex Sep 2015 #17

This message was self-deleted by its author Iggo Sep 2015 #18

Thanks for posting this. (though I could have done without the pic example) cwydro Sep 2015 #19

I was on the fence about including the pic, but since it's referenced in the post... arcane1 Sep 2015 #21

I don't care what she looks like. But I'll say she is a hypocrite. She ignores the bible on divorce AlinPA Sep 2015 #20

Many posters on the DU are as rude as any freeper..... Logical Sep 2015 #22

internet messageboard anyone is free to register and post. Even people who like to make DU look like Sunlei Sep 2015 #24

Prison rape is another fun one. nt awoke_in_2003 Sep 2015 #60

So true! Disgusting. nt Logical Sep 2015 #61

Sure enough Bobbie Jo Sep 2015 #70

I agree with you. Public political Twitter is like the old chatrooms, a cesspool of society. Sunlei Sep 2015 #23

What a gross abuse of the term "slut-shaming". Defending such hypocracy KittyWampus Sep 2015 #25

I'm not "defending hypocrisy" in any sense whatsoever. arcane1 Sep 2015 #26

Then you'd have to make a case for actual SLUT-SHAMING since you used it in your OP- KittyWampus Sep 2015 #29

I didn't write the blog. I merely posted it. arcane1 Sep 2015 #30

+1. nt MADem Sep 2015 #107

BTW, the graphic you chose to use does NOT necessarily refer to her looks. KittyWampus Sep 2015 #27

I didn't choose the graphic. It's part of the blog post I linked to. arcane1 Sep 2015 #28

How is arcane in any way defending her? uppityperson Sep 2015 #105

She is claiming religious superiority based in the bible WDIM Sep 2015 #31

No, they are making fun of her looks. And you know it. nt Logical Sep 2015 #41

That image - wtf? Oneironaut Sep 2015 #34

dunno. because if it also means I can't cut up about elehhhhna Sep 2015 #35

her ugliness is on the inside restorefreedom Sep 2015 #36

I don't give a damn how she looks. longship Sep 2015 #40

if you're gonna scream about the morality of others Skittles Sep 2015 #44

This isn't "Progressives" or even "Liberals".... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2015 #47

Can we say anything about Trump' s hair on this board? Person 2713 Sep 2015 #50

i thought of that too treestar Sep 2015 #91

But we can continue slut-shaming those with whom we agree? closeupready Sep 2015 #51

I guess her inner ugliness shows on the outside... Helen Borg Sep 2015 #52

No slut-shaming of women but yes to zipper-shaming of men ("Bill can't keep his zipper up") progree Sep 2015 #53

He was also in a position of power... awoke_in_2003 Sep 2015 #62

I wasn't talking about THAT Bill, just a generic male name. progree Sep 2015 #65

Ah- I heard "Bill" and "zipper" awoke_in_2003 Sep 2015 #66

This Bill :-) progree Sep 2015 #67

Men have traditionally been applauded for it treestar Sep 2015 #89

In high school and college, especially among boys and men, yes, putting notches in ones belt progree Sep 2015 #94

I think it's still a bit a part of gender oppression treestar Sep 2015 #97

I'm not in much of a position to oppress and control progree Sep 2015 #98

Are 'knotches' Koch notches? : ) nt MADem Sep 2015 #108

So you know this is a "real" progressive how? Another attempt to smear progressives. Skwmom Sep 2015 #54

The blogger? I don't know. But I agree with their point. arcane1 Sep 2015 #57

I agree- attacking people for looks and assumed desirability is pretty low Hydra Sep 2015 #56

I don't know who "we" is. I've never said anything about her looks. However, I have and will Chakab Sep 2015 #59

I'm guilty. I often made disparaging comments about Reagan's shoe polish hair japple Sep 2015 #63

Making fun of Trump's hair might fall into this treestar Sep 2015 #90

Good and fair point... Mike Nelson Sep 2015 #69

She could be a 10 on the outside but she's ugly as sin on the inside. hobbit709 Sep 2015 #73

I'm not going to be considerate to someone romanic Sep 2015 #74

That pictorial content is nasty. However... herding cats Sep 2015 #76

Let me know when the fat cheetos stained neckbeard jokes stop. Sen. Walter Sobchak Sep 2015 #85

She was younger at one time treestar Sep 2015 #87

Yes cut it with the looks comments libodem Sep 2015 #92

Well, there goes my good night's sleep arcane1 Sep 2015 #101

I know, I know libodem Sep 2015 #103

I know I'm bad but it is kind of true damnedifIknow Sep 2015 #93

I agree that this is way wrong dsc Sep 2015 #95

The hatred and vitriol aimed at this woman is the kind of thing that makes me a little sick CBGLuthier Sep 2015 #96

Can you stop broadbrushing with your shame on you crap? lunatica Sep 2015 #99

I agree with the post-please just stop peasant one Sep 2015 #100

And the way we do this is to pass the insults on? MADem Sep 2015 #106

I just want to kick this thread again Tipperary Sep 2015 #109

Agreed! Z_California Sep 2015 #110

Thanks for posting this. Let's talk about their ugly ideas nilram Sep 2015 #111