Buzz words diversity and inclusion, like a creepy neighbor, State Farm is there.

IVCguy

Well-known member
I have to admit this is some high end shade:
There was an adult version geared more towards older aholes, but studies show old aholes stay that way till they finally croak then they go straight to heaven and make fun of freaks all day.

And this crap is more typical of your work. Lol
These are the real freaks.



Beware of ultra conservative christians who preach right wing morals - that is some scary stuff (seriously). And Qanon is busy investigating pizza restaurants. :rolleyes:
 

jackson03

Well-known member
I am no expert on it and neither are you and fortunately we have never had to deal with any such situation. Assuming you do not have a kid who is lgbt. Doctors are experts however and parents are parents and know their child so it is ultimately their decision. But I agree I (and doctors I hope) would be hesitant and extremely extremely careful if felt compelled to proceed.
I understand that we're not experts. But on this one I think the FDA is making a grave mistake. I'm pretty libertarian but I do believe in having an FDA. This drug is not like popping an aspirin. It's an end of life drug with a new purpose. I don't think it's the parents' or child's or doctor's decision.
 

limabean

Active member
I understand that we're not experts. But on this one I think the FDA is making a grave mistake. I'm pretty libertarian but I do believe in having an FDA. This drug is not like popping an aspirin. It's an end of life drug with a new purpose. I don't think it's the parents' or child's or doctor's decision.

Which drugs are you referring to? If you are talking about drugs like goserelin or leuprolide, those are not end of life drugs. They are hormonal agents and are used to treat hormone-related cancers like breast and prostate cancers. I saw orders for both of these drugs today. Leuprolide has been used for years in kids for precocious puberty. Not arguing for or against its use in transgender children but these drugs don't kill cancer cells. If it isn't one of these drugs, what drug is it?
 

jackson03

Well-known member
Which drugs are you referring to? If you are talking about drugs like goserelin or leuprolide, those are not end of life drugs. They are hormonal agents and are used to treat hormone-related cancers like breast and prostate cancers. I saw orders for both of these drugs today. Leuprolide has been used for years in kids for precocious puberty. Not arguing for or against its use in transgender children but these drugs don't kill cancer cells. If it isn't one of these drugs, what drug is it?
Leuprolide. It's brutal. I know nothing about goserelin.
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
The problem I have with the child molestation narrative being presented by the leftists on this forum and leftist media is that the corrective steps being taken are being treated as some kind of cover up when it was the SBC who commissioned the audit. It should be interpreted in that context, not with this dark, nefarious spin. This is a thread about State Farm and its ridiculous woke appeal and the SBC story had nothing to do with the thread. Also, I have a problem with, as another thread name on this subject implies, that this is only occurring in the SBC - which is nonsense. Everywhere we have adults (mostly men) and children, we have instances of sexual abuse on occasion. Most sexual abuse occurs in and around the victim's homes, particularly when non-blood relative males live with minor females. So, let's have some context and perspective.

For the record, I have no affiliation with the SBC.

I have a few experiences from my past that's informative on this subject. One is that I served on a committee to draft a church policy on child abuse, including sexual abuse. This was in the 1990's. It became necessary when it became a known major legal liability. So, all workers in the church had to fill out a form and background checks were conducted. The church had never had an incident involving any form of child abuse and hasn't up to today, but the legal liability connected with such events forced them to protect themselves with new screening systems.

My wife's freshman roommate married a guy from my freshman year dorm and a friend of mine. Their son was molested by a Sunday School teacher at a church in Wisconsin where they moved. The offender was arrested, prosecuted, and served 12 years in prison. My friend and father of the victim was a police officer. He and his wife struggled for several years with bitterness and unforgiveness. They eventually healed, as did their son, and the father went into the ministry where he serves today. But this event was extremely painful and difficult, despite the fact that the church and the authorities all did the right things.

In terms of understanding how complicated things can get, I offer this. I have changed a few details to protect the innocent. We had a new pastor come from several states away. He was a very fine man with a picture-perfect family. But that was just in the picture. My wife and I became friends with them almost immediately, which gave us access to the family others did not have. The pastor was a very kind, sweet, and sincere man. His wife was sharper, smarter, and a natural born leader. This was a problem only because in our circles, the pastor is the leader of the church and one of the requirements of a pastor is that he be the leader in his home. He wasn't. His wife was. He was, in a word, detached. In the church he was hesitant, non-committal, and reluctant to make firm decisions. This lovely couple had an oldest child, a daughter, who was hell on wheels. If you think of a stereotypical rebel preacher's kid, she was it. If it was forbidden, she was doing it. She was like a soap opera character who used her sexuality and had 100 ways to manipulate and use people.

One day I showed up at a track meet where my son was competing, and the pastor's daughter was also a member of the team. She had a tank top on, and she had very deep bruises from her shoulder to her elbow on one arm. I asked her what happened and she told me that her dad had became angry with her and punched her 3 or 4 times. This put me in a pickle. I wanted to report, but that girl lied like she breathed, so she couldn't be trusted, and a police or CPS investigation would be devastating to the family and the church. I had a private meeting with the pastor and asked him if he had inflicted those bruises and he said that she had provoked him, he lost his temper, and was, indeed, responsible for those bruises. I told him what he already knew - that this kind of thing should never happen and can't happen. I told him that if it ever happened again, I would report him. He said he understood and that it wouldn't happen again because he and his wife had decided that only she would be in charge of discipline - which wasn't exactly the remedy I was looking for. I try to put myself in someone else's shoes: while I don't think a parent should ever physically discipline a teenager, I also know that if that girl was my daughter and was acting the way she was, I know I could have lost my temper and self-control as well. Once you get the authorities involved in a situation like this one, which I perceived as a one-off and not likely to ever happen again, things can go in unexpected directions and end up with consequences that exceed expectations. I didn't want to test those possibilities.

Long story short, he was not fit to be in ministry because of his lack of leadership skills and because of that one incident of abuse. We offered he and his wife 3 different forms of counselling help on 3 occasions at our expense, which they refused. The problems with the daughter's behavior worsened, they would not address it, and we were down to 2 choices: make the problems known to the church board (and eventually the church at large) or leave. We left very quietly because I had vowed to never be the guy that caused a big stink in the church - or be accused of doing it. Eventually, the problems in the family and the daughter became very public and the pastor resigned 1 1/2 years after we left.

Now, if this had involved sexual abuse, I would have reported it without hesitation. The circumstances were such that I felt we could save the family and church a lot pain and difficulty if their family problems were handled privately. I still think that was correct, although the practical effect was all it accomplished was delaying the public exposure of the problems for 18 months. And, no, there was no more physical abuse of the daughter after that one event. But that wasn't the core of their problems, only a symptom, and the only people who could really fix it was the pastor and his wife, and they refused to receive the help offered them to do so.

I guess the point is that while hiding sexual abuse is inexcusable and criminal, I do understand the wider concerns that weigh in on someone in terms of reporting and how a lack of proper priorities can cause some people to end up protecting a predator in an effort to protect innocent people and the church's reputation. Private matters should be handled privately and public ones publicly. However, since I have been taught by the church that the answer to every problem is: transparency, responsibility, and accountability, whatever embarrassment is caused by pursuing those things pales in comparison to the consequences of avoiding them when something like sexual abuse has occurred. A lot of well-intended people have tried to keep things private that should have been made public and made a situation much worse - and then the leftist mob descends to make their condemnations and say, "I told you so". I can do without that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Last edited:

Yorktown

Well-known member
The problem I have with the child molestation narrative being presented by the leftists on this forum and leftist media is that the corrective steps being taken are being treated as some kind of cover up when it was the SBC who commissioned the audit. It should be interpreted in that context, not with this dark, nefarious spin. This is a thread about State Farm and its ridiculous woke appeal and the SBC story had nothing to do with the thread. Also, I have a problem with, as another thread name on this subject implies, that this is only occurring in the SBC - which is nonsense. Everywhere we have adults (mostly men) and children, we have instances of sexual abuse on occasion. Most sexual abuse occurs in and around the victim's homes, particularly when non-blood relative males live with minor females. So, let's have some context and perspective.

For the record, I have no affiliation with the SBC.

I have a few experiences from my past that's informative on this subject. One is that I served on a committee to draft a church policy on child abuse, including sexual abuse. This was in the 1990's. It became necessary when it became a known major legal liability. So, all workers in the church had to fill out a form and background checks were conducted. The church had never had an incident involving any form of child abuse and hasn't up to today, but the legal liability connected with such events forced them to protect themselves with new screening systems.

My wife's freshman roommate married a guy from my freshman year dorm and a friend of mine. Their son was molested by a Sunday School teacher at a church in Wisconsin where they moved. The offender was arrested, prosecuted, and served 12 years in prison. My friend and father of the victim was a police officer. He and his wife struggled for several years with bitterness and unforgiveness. They eventually healed, as did their son, and the father went into the ministry where he serves today. But this event was extremely painful and difficult, despite the fact that the church and the authorities all did the right things.

In terms of understanding how complicated things can get, I offer this. I have changed a few details to protect the innocent. We had a new pastor come from several states away. He was a very fine man with a picture-perfect family. But that was just in the picture. My wife and I became friends with them almost immediately, which gave us access to the family others did not have. The pastor was a very kind, sweet, and sincere man. His wife was sharper, smarter, and a natural born leader. This was a problem only because in our circles, the pastor is the leader of the church and one of the requirements of a pastor is that he be the leader in his home. He wasn't. His wife was. He was, in a word, detached. In the church he was hesitant, non-committal, and reluctant to make firm decisions. This lovely couple had an oldest child, a daughter, who was hell on wheels. If you think of a stereotypical rebel preacher's kid, she was it. If it was forbidden, she was doing it. She was like a soap opera character who used her sexuality and had 100 ways to manipulate and use people.

One day I showed up at a track meet where my son was competing, and the pastor's daughter was also a member of the team. She had a tank top on, and she had very deep bruises from her shoulder to her elbow on one arm. I asked her what happened and she told me that her dad had became angry with her and punched her 3 or 4 times. This put me in a pickle. I wanted to report, but that girl lied like she breathed, so she couldn't be trusted, and a police or CPS investigation would be devastating to the family and the church. I had a private meeting with the pastor and asked him if he had inflicted those bruises and he said that she had provoked him, he lost his temper, and was, indeed, responsible for those bruises. I told him what he already knew - that this kind of thing should never happen and can't happen. I told him that if it ever happened again, I would report him. He said he understood and that it wouldn't happen again because he and his wife had decided that only she would be in charge of discipline - which wasn't exactly the remedy I was looking for. I try to put myself in someone else's shoes: while I don't think a parent should ever physically discipline a teenager, I also know that if that girl was my daughter and was acting the way she was, I know I could have lost my temper and self-control as well. Once you get the authorities involved in a situation like this one, which I perceived as a one-off and not likely to ever happen again, things can go in unexpected directions and end up with consequences that exceed expectations. I didn't want to test those possibilities.

Long story short, he was not fit to be in ministry because of his lack of leadership skills and because of that one incident of abuse. We offered he and his wife 3 different forms of counselling help on 3 occasions at our expense, which they refused. The problems with the daughter's behavior worsened, they would not address it, and we were down to 2 choices: make the problems known to the church board (and eventually the church at large) or leave. We left very quietly because I had vowed to never be the guy that caused a big stink in the church - or be accused of doing it. Eventually, the problems in the family and the daughter became very public and the pastor resigned 1 1/2 years after we left.

Now, if this had involved sexual abuse, I would have reported it without hesitation. The circumstances were such that I felt we could save the family and church a lot pain and difficulty if their family problems were handled privately. I still think that was correct, although the practical effect was all it accomplished was delaying the public exposure of the problems for 18 months. And, no, there was no more physical abuse of the daughter after that one event. But that wasn't the core of their problems, only a symptom, and the only people who could really fix it was the pastor and his wife, and they refused to receive the help offered them to do so.

I guess the point is that while hiding sexual abuse is inexcusable and criminal, I do understand the wider concerns that weigh in on someone in terms of reporting and how a lack of proper priorities can cause some people to end up protecting a predator in an effort to protect innocent people and the church's reputation. Private matters should be handled privately and public ones publicly. However, since I have been taught by the church that the answer to every problem is: transparency, responsibility, and accountability, whatever embarrassment is caused by pursuing those things pales in comparison to the consequences of avoiding them when something like sexual abuse has occurred. A lot of well-intended people have tried to keep things private that should have been made public and made a situation much worse - and then the leftist mob descends to make their condemnations and say, "I told you so". I can do without that. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Ive had a similar experience within my church but it dealt with mental abuse not physical. Most people dont even question mental abuse or even recognize it is happening.
We had a female pastor that was mentally abusive. She used her postition in the church and her home situation to constantly extract sympathy from members of the church to get her way.
Brief explanation of her home situation. She was a divorced mother of 5. She already had an older daughter that was grown and not part of the 5. She took the 5 on herself by adoption. All this was done AFTER she was hired as pastor of our church. She constantly brought up the fact that she was physically abused by her ex-husband. Looking back on it, I don’t believe that she was abused by her husband. She was using her “abuse” as another point of sympathy.
On one Sunday during her sermon, she accused the church council of being mentally abusive towards her.
Why? Becaus the council asked her to account for the time and the individual church members she was visiting.
Why did the council want this? Because there were many complaints that she was not visiting the elderly church member who can’t make it into church.
Long story short her emotional plea on that Sunday had more then half the congregation on her side. A rift was created and half the congregation left the church. She won and is still there. Mental abuse with the manipulation of peoples emotions is real. This is much more prevalent than physical abuse, yet very few people call out the people who are doing it.
 

IVCguy

Well-known member
Ive had a similar experience within my church but it dealt with mental abuse not physical. Most people dont even question mental abuse or even recognize it is happening.
We had a female pastor that was mentally abusive. She used her postition in the church and her home situation to constantly extract sympathy from members of the church to get her way.
Brief explanation of her home situation. She was a divorced mother of 5. She already had an older daughter that was grown and not part of the 5. She took the 5 on herself by adoption. All this was done AFTER she was hired as pastor of our church. She constantly brought up the fact that she was physically abused by her ex-husband. Looking back on it, I don’t believe that she was abused by her husband. She was using her “abuse” as another point of sympathy.
On one Sunday during her sermon, she accused the church council of being mentally abusive towards her.
Why? Becaus the council asked her to account for the time and the individual church members she was visiting.
Why did the council want this? Because there were many complaints that she was not visiting the elderly church member who can’t make it into church.
Long story short her emotional plea on that Sunday had more then half the congregation on her side. A rift was created and half the congregation left the church. She won and is still there. Mental abuse with the manipulation of peoples emotions is real. This is much more prevalent than physical abuse, yet very few people call out the people who are doing it.
We see over and over that people who should never be in the ministry do significant harm when they are put there. There are biblical qualifications and this woman did not meet several of them. But each church/denomination has its standards and screening system. Obviously, some work better than others.

In the case I presented, the pastor was a really fine man with very sincere, good intentions - but he wasn't qualified to be a lead pastor. I believe as an asst, he was fine because he was working under the leadership of a capable pastor. But when he had to sit in the big chair, his weaknesses and shortcomings emerged.
 
.
Top