Texas teen arrested after her dead baby is found buried in a flowerpot

A teen smothered her newborn baby in February with a shirt as the infant was about to cry for the first time and later buried the child in a flowerpot, according to police and court documents.

At first, the flowerpot was left in a car overnight before the 18-year-old from Dallas and a friend took the flowerpot to a Carrollton cemetery and left it there, according to arrest warrant obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Wednesday.

Last month, an employee at the cemetery found the baby buried in the flowerpot.

Authorities arrested Jazmin Lopez of Dallas on Tuesday without incident.

Lopez was in the Denton County Jail on Wednesday in lieu of $500,000 bail. The teen is expected to be charged with capital murder, Carrollton police said.

Her juvenile friend had not been arrested as of Wednesday, but the investigation continued, said Carrollton police spokeswoman Jolene DeVito in a Wednesday telephone interview.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article229374349.html

One of those stories so horrific, I just had to spread the word. Sorry.

She’s a loon and needs help.

Oh and take away her ovaries for the love of Mary.

Christ. That poor baby. Born to die.

Southerners!

Original Quill wrote:Southerners!

It’s just so sad all the way around.

You don't like me pointing it out, but you can't deny the truth of it.

It always happens in a southern state. Where did Caylee Anthony's murder happen? Where did Susan Smith drown her kids? How many children did Andrea Yeats drown in the tub...in Houston, Texas?

Original Quill wrote:You don't like me pointing it out, but you can't deny the truth of it.

It always happens in a southern state.  Where did Caylee Anthony's murder happen?  Where did Susan Smith drown her kids?    How many children did Andrea Yeats drown in the tub...in Houston, Texas?

Oh please. Where was the horrific murder-suicide of those 6 kids and their moms?

I’ll give you a big hint. It wasn’t in the south.

Original Quill wrote:You don't like me pointing it out, but you can't deny the truth of it.

It always happens in a southern state.  Where did Caylee Anthony's murder happen?  Where did Susan Smith drown her kids?    How many children did Andrea Yeats drown in the tub...in Houston, Texas?

Yeah, plus the South had Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, Son of Sam, Richard Ramirez, the San Bernadino attack ... wait no, they were all in California.

I think you're suffering from confirmation bias -- you've decided the South is shitty, and you look for factoids that confirm your bias.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You don't like me pointing it out, but you can't deny the truth of it.

It always happens in a southern state.  Where did Caylee Anthony's murder happen?  Where did Susan Smith drown her kids?    How many children did Andrea Yeats drown in the tub...in Houston, Texas?

Yeah, plus the South had Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, Son of Sam, Richard Ramirez, the San Bernadino attack ... wait no, they were all in California.

I think you're suffering from confirmation bias -- you've decided the South is shitty, and you look for factoids that confirm your bias

Happens ALL THE TIME on here. All the fucking time.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You don't like me pointing it out, but you can't deny the truth of it.

It always happens in a southern state.  Where did Caylee Anthony's murder happen?  Where did Susan Smith drown her kids?    How many children did Andrea Yeats drown in the tub...in Houston, Texas?

Yeah, plus the South had Charles Manson, the Zodiac Killer, Son of Sam, Richard Ramirez, the San Bernadino attack ... wait no, they were all in California.

I think you're suffering from confirmation bias -- you've decided the South is shitty, and you look for factoids that confirm your bias.

Minor point. Son of Sam was NYC. We lived through it as my both parents worked in
the city during that time

But NYC is in the north so that’s applicable.

Where do they love guns?  Where do they hate blacks?  Where do they burn churches?

I'm not talking about individual acts.  I'm talking about the whole collection of events...you might say a culture.  Do you reckon this happen in Minnesota?



And women too?



Denial is a river in east Africa.

Original Quill wrote: Do you reckon this happen in Minnesota?

I don't know, was he named Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson or Isaac McGhie?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote: Do you reckon this happen in Minnesota?

I don't know, was he named Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson or Isaac McGhie?

He likely didn't have a name.  Getting down to brass tacks, we have two nations and two cultures in America.  The North (and lately, the west), is compelled by greed but not substantive ideas about how people should live.  Greed is selfishness, and I have my criticisms about that.  But at least the North is governed by abstract rationality.  It is an open society and anyone with the character and drive (or inheritance) can succeed.

The south is closer to classifying people directly, using the sights and smells of the souls.  Their common denominator is not abstract, like the north, but flesh and the tangible property and  features of people.  When they classify people, they don't use adjectives like 'drive' and 'integrity', but--first and foremost--black.  Their ideas affect their actions, and they have little tolerance for sense, let alone abstract appreciation, for the modes of life.

I have railed on and on about their racism, but lets look at other aspects of life.  Southerners have little tolerance for anything different.  They huddle together like a Baptist church group, imposing strict adherence to the norm.  This extends to their tolerance for modern science.  Andrea Yeats, suffering from long standing postpartum depression, could get no help in Texas, because they don't even tolerate the abstract science that says there might be an illness at play.  Southerners play it closer to the flesh...she was a heinous murder, case closed.  At least until a little northern reasonableness came on the scene.  That's why you see so many atrocities in the south.

But it's in all walks of life.  Southerners like guns because shooting someone to death appears, to them, a definitiveness of right and wrong (unless the shooter is black--they have a different prism, through which to view things, for that).  It appeals to the earthiness of the Southerner.  I did it for justice...unless you find something that taints that.  That's why George Zimmerman got away with the murder of a young boy...I did it for justice, and it helps that there were no eyewitnesses.  Oh, and, um, his victim was black--queue the presumptions of southern racism.  Zimmerman wrote the narrative, and a southern jury bought it.

Race, guns and pick-up trucks...all non-abstract, earthy, and all determined by primitive 'we-they', 'good-guy/bad-guy' perception of the southerner.  With the merger of Republicans and the south, we have the elite money class, using the perfect (southern) dupes.  What did John Stuart Mill say: 'I never said all conservatives are stupid; I said all stupid people are conservatives.'

So, I can only conclude two things: 1) southerners are the personification of primitive, non-abstract man; and 2) it’s an insurmountable problem, one that makes it impossible for the rest of us to move forward—indeed, holds us back.  Had we but the strength and wisdom to cure them, and bring them into civilized modernity, there might be some salvation.  But we northerners and westerners are not that strong (if you have any suggestions that don't involve bringing the rest of us down to their level, I'd like to hear them), so excision is the only solution available to us. There’s naught to do but untie the moorings and set them adrift.

@ Quill

when that loose bit of california falls into the sea and the rest is leveled, likely without much in the way of warning, I take it you will refuse any and all aid from any "southern state"

Victorismyhero wrote:@ Quill

when that loose bit of california falls into the sea and the rest is leveled, likely without much in the way of warning, I take it you will refuse any and all aid from any "southern state"

Southern states have never given California anything, and will never give California anything but grief and trouble.  Indeed, much of our money goes to prop up their primitive and racist existence,

California is not threatened by seismic activity, but by lack of water.  The beautiful watershed that exists east of the Rockies--Platte River, into the Missouri River on the left, Ohio River valley on the right, all flowing into the Mississippi, down to New Orleans, second largest seaport in the world-- is not duplicated on the western slope.  On the western slope we have only the Colorado River, and that is dry before it reaches the Sea of Cortez.

Fortunately, desalination and other technical advancements--technology is something that California excels in--are available to remedy that.  We would never ask, nor receive any help from the south.  Witness the reluctance in the south to put federal resources into rebuilding the northeast in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irene and Sandy--particularly after we've rebuilt Houston so many times.  We know better than to depend upon them.

We in California and the west coast are alone within the United States, separated from our brothers in the northeast, and thus so much more the reason we need to sever political bonds that drag us down and hold us back.  There is nothing in it for us.  There will come a time when California is indeed needful, and from experience we know we cannot expect help from the south.  That is part of their visceral attitude.  Fortunately, the west coast has most of the intellectual capacity of the US, so we will look to ourselves for our own survival.

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote: Do you reckon this happen in Minnesota?

I don't know, was he named Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson or Isaac McGhie?

He likely didn't have a name.  Getting down to brass tacks, we have two nations and two cultures in America.  The North (and lately, the west), is compelled by greed but not substantive ideas about how people should live.  Greed is selfishness, and I have my criticisms about that.  But at least the North is governed by abstract rationality.  It is an open society and anyone with the character and drive (or inheritance) can succeed.

The south is closer to classifying people directly, using the sights and smells of the souls.  Their common denominator is not abstract, like the north, but flesh and the tangible property and  features of people.  When they classify people, they don't use adjectives like 'drive' and 'integrity', but--first and foremost--black.  Their ideas affect their actions, and they have little tolerance for sense, let alone abstract appreciation, for the modes of life.

I have railed on and on about their racism, but lets look at other aspects of life.  Southerners have little tolerance for anything different.  They huddle together like a Baptist church group, imposing strict adherence to the norm.  This extends to their tolerance for modern science.  Andrea Yeats, suffering from long standing postpartum depression, could get no help in Texas, because they don't even tolerate the abstract science that says there might be an illness at play.  Southerners play it closer to the flesh...she was a heinous murder, case closed.  At least until a little northern reasonableness came on the scene.  That's why you see so many atrocities in the south.

But it's in all walks of life.  Southerners like guns because shooting someone to death appears, to them, a definitiveness of right and wrong (unless the shooter is black--they have a different prism, through which to view things, for that).  It appeals to the earthiness of the Southerner.  I did it for justice...unless you find something that taints that.  That's why George Zimmerman got away with the murder of a young boy...I did it for justice, and it helps that there were no eyewitnesses.  Oh, and, um, his victim was black--queue the presumptions of southern racism.  Zimmerman wrote the narrative, and a southern jury bought it.

Race, guns and pick-up trucks...all non-abstract, earthy, and all determined by primitive 'we-they', 'good-guy/bad-guy' perception of the southerner.  With the merger of Republicans and the south, we have the elite money class, using the perfect (southern) dupes.  What did John Stuart Mill say: 'I never said all conservatives are stupid; I said all stupid people are conservatives.'

So, I can only conclude two things: 1) southerners are the personification of primitive, non-abstract man; and 2) it’s an insurmountable problem, one that makes it impossible for the rest of us to move forward—indeed, holds us back.  Had we but the strength and wisdom to cure them, and bring them into civilized modernity, there might be some salvation.  But we northerners and westerners are not that strong (if you have any suggestions that don't involve bringing the rest of us down to their level, I'd like to hear them), so excision is the only solution available to us. There’s naught to do but untie the moorings and set them adrift.

Just saying, if that man was Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson or Isaac McGhie, he was indeed lynched in Duluth, Minnesota.

And this girl is Mexican-American, so she doesn't really fall into the stereotype you're trying to make.

That particular man was hung, I believe, in Alabama.

Wiki wrote:Lynching is the practice of murder by a group of people by extrajudicial action. Lynchings in the United States rose in number after the American Civil War in the late 1800s, following the emancipation of slaves; they declined in the 1920s but have continued to take place into the 20th century. Most lynchings were of African-American men in the South,

Do you deny that lynching of blacks was a southern thing? That's the point.

If you do, then you're so far over the line that there's no use in us talking about it.

Original Quill wrote:---





.

Christ alive!!!      
Call me naïve but I never knew women or kids were lynched, thought it was just males.    
One of those girls is clearly a prepubertal child.


Just when you think you've seen everything, you're shown evidence of humans sinking even lower.
Thank you, OQ, for improving my education by showing me things I never realised happened.

Original Quill wrote:That man was hung in Alabama.

Do you deny that lynching of blacks was a southern thing?

If you do, then you're so far over the line that there's no use in us talking.

The majority of lynchings were in the South, that is true, but lynchings happened all over the country. During the Civil War, a riot broke out over the draft in New York and well over 100 black people were murdered by white Northerners.

Slavery, segregation and racism all existed in the North as well -- really the only difference was that slavery and segregation ended earlier.

An old friend of mine from Minnesota said she saw plenty of rednecks, many of whom flew the Confederate flag. You think they were proud of their Southern heritage or something?

Finally, this story has nothing to do with racism, so I'm not going to engage you any further on that. This was a Mexican-American teenager who killed her baby and buried it in a flowerpot. It has nothing to do with the South or with racism.

Visual images make such a powerful impact on the psyche, I clean forgot about the topic. Was grateful to be educated about something I knew nowt about, tho.


OK, so back on topic - this flowerpot burial was gruesome. I sincerely hope the kid gets all the psychological support she needs.

Cos that is exactly what would happen here in the UK, I doubt she would spend a single night in jail if it happened here, let alone charged with murder.  A mother killing her own baby of less than one year old usually gets psychiatric help, not punishment.  Infanticide is regarded as a very special category of homicide here, and leniency is the norm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:That man was hung in Alabama.

Do you deny that lynching of blacks was a southern thing?

If you do, then you're so far over the line that there's no use in us talking.

The majority of lynchings were in the South, that is true, but lynchings happened all over the country. During the Civil War, a riot broke out over the draft in New York and well over 100 black people were murdered by white Northerners.

Slavery, segregation and racism all existed in the North as well -- really the only difference was that slavery and segregation ended earlier.

An old friend of mine from Minnesota said she saw plenty of rednecks, many of whom flew the Confederate flag. You think they were proud of their Southern heritage or something?

Finally, this story has nothing to do with racism, so I'm not going to engage you any further on that. This was a Mexican-American teenager who killed her baby and buried it in a flowerpot. It has nothing to do with the South or with racism.

This is what really pisses me off about you yanks

You constantly play a game of oppression points based on the horrible hate that African Americans went through as slaves and laters as citizens

You constantly never talk about the actual indigenous Indians

You lefties continually use Black people for your own political gain

Not really having a go at you here Ben, as you at least try to show Balance, but the constant babble from Quill. How he seeks to sterotype people based in the south. Ignoring the hate, ethnic cleasnsing in the North and even more so of indigenous Indians. Really says to me, the man is a fucking idiot

Everything is identity politics to him and based on skin colour and oppression points

America's had plenty of oppression, for sure. I'm fairly sure the largest lynching in the country's history was of Chinese immigrants in the glorious utopia of California.

The natives were literally decimated and had their land stolen, Japanese were interred during WWII, the original KKK was as anti-Catholic as it was anti-black, women had to fight for equal citizenship, Irish and Italian immigrants were treated like shit -- Jews were defamed and oppressed -- Latinos are stereotyped as rapists and murderers -- it's just everybody, really.

Oh, and every time there's a terrorist attack, somebody who looks Middle Eastern gets attacked or killed.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Oh, and every time there's a terrorist attack, somebody who looks Middle Eastern gets attacked or killed.

Actually, it is documented that most terrorist attacks are made by southerners. But, many state criminal justice agencies (primarily southern) do not assign the word 'terrorist' to white supremacist activities.

The FBI relies on state agencies to report the nature of the crime. If the southern states cleanse their statistics, the malignancy is passed up the line.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:America's had plenty of oppression, for sure. I'm fairly sure the largest lynching in the country's history was of Chinese immigrants in the glorious utopia of California.

The natives were literally decimated and had their land stolen, Japanese were interred during WWII, the original KKK was as anti-Catholic as it was anti-black, women had to fight for equal citizenship, Irish and Italian immigrants were treated like shit -- Jews were defamed and oppressed -- Latinos are stereotyped as rapists and murderers -- it's just everybody, really.

That is being open and honest about US history

That is not simple about African Americans, as Quill seems to think it is

Many groups have suffered hate at times in its history

I just get sick and tired of Quill insulting black people and many Americans  based off his hateful sterotypical views

They bore the shit out of me and are very much in the identity tribal politics camp

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Oh, and every time there's a terrorist attack, somebody who looks Middle Eastern gets attacked or killed.

Actually, it is documented that most terrorist attacks are made by southerners.  But, many state criminal justice agencies (primarily southern) do not assign the word 'terrorist' to white supremacist activities.

The FBI relies on state agencies to report the nature of the crime.  If the southern states cleanse their statistics, the malignancy is passed up the line.

Timothy McVeigh was born in New York.

I feel guilty that my comment got you into trouble, OQ. Sorry! 
The mods can delete that post I made, if it upsets any sensibilities. It was all my fault tbh!  


No idea why Didge is screaming and cursing tho. It's utterly laughable that he thinks he is any better than OQ, with his literally hundreds of threads moaning about "left wingers". I sometimes quietly lose the will to live at the sight of Didge's nonstop identikit moany threads about 'lefties this' & 'lefties that' …. but I don't complain.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, it is documented that most terrorist attacks are made by southerners.  But, many state criminal justice agencies (primarily southern) do not assign the word 'terrorist' to white supremacist activities.

The FBI relies on state agencies to report the nature of the crime.  If the southern states cleanse their statistics, the malignancy is passed up the line.

Timothy McVeigh was born in New York.

You can't generalize from specifics. No doubt there are other terrorists. But the largest group of terrorists in the US is southerners.

That said, McVeigh was schooled in terrorist tactics in Elohim City, OK, at a terrorist camp there...far from New York City. It is interesting that it was in Oklahoma that he got his training in bomb-making. The bombing was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in United States history.

If you follow my post above, I mention that racism is not the only thing that characterizes the south. Guns are high on the list. Its a small step to bombing and anti-government sentiments.

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Timothy McVeigh was born in New York.

You can't generalize from specifics.  No doubt there are other terrorists.  But the largest group of terrorists in the US is southerners.

Based on what time frame?

Lets start with the terrorism from the American war of Independence and work forward shall we?

Original Quill wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually, it is documented that most terrorist attacks are made by southerners.  But, many state criminal justice agencies (primarily southern) do not assign the word 'terrorist' to white supremacist activities.

The FBI relies on state agencies to report the nature of the crime.  If the southern states cleanse their statistics, the malignancy is passed up the line.

Timothy McVeigh was born in New York.

You can't generalize from specifics.  No doubt there are other terrorists.  But the largest group of terrorists in the US is southerners.

That said, McVeigh was schooled in terrorist tactics in Elohim City, OK, at a terrorist camp there...far from New York City.  It is interesting that it was in Oklahoma that he got his training in bomb-making.  The bombing was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in United States history.

If you follow my post above, I mention that racism is not the only thing that characterizes the south.  Guns are high on the list.  Its a small step to bombing and anti-government sentiments.

Okay, I'm going back on what I said, that I wasn't going to engage with you on racism in this thread anymore, but I have to point out that you're contradicting what you often say here.

Which is that the gene pool of the North is superior to that of the South (obviously the *white* gene pool) because Southerners got lazy, having slaves doing everything for them.

So McVeigh is from the Northern gene pool. For that matter, so is Trump. So are the people who followed a black guy in a posh NYC store just because he was black. It happens everywhere, and your generalities are neither accurate nor helpful.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You can't generalize from specifics.  No doubt there are other terrorists.  But the largest group of terrorists in the US is southerners.

That said, McVeigh was schooled in terrorist tactics in Elohim City, OK, at a terrorist camp there...far from New York City.  It is interesting that it was in Oklahoma that he got his training in bomb-making.  The bombing was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in United States history.

If you follow my post above, I mention that racism is not the only thing that characterizes the south.  Guns are high on the list.  Its a small step to bombing and anti-government sentiments.

Okay, I'm going back on what I said, that I wasn't going to engage with you on racism in this thread anymore, but I have to point out that you're contradicting what you often say here.

Which is that the gene pool of the North is superior to that of the South (obviously the *white* gene pool) because Southerners got lazy, having slaves doing everything for them.

So McVeigh is from the Northern gene pool. For that matter, so is Trump. So are the people who followed a black guy in a posh NYC store just because he was black. It happens everywhere, and your generalities are neither accurate nor helpful.

+1

Ben wrote:Okay, I'm going back on what I said, that I wasn't going to engage with you on racism in this thread anymore, but I have to point out that you're contradicting what you often say here.

Which is that the gene pool of the North is superior to that of the South (obviously the *white* gene pool) because Southerners got lazy, having slaves doing everything for them.

So McVeigh is from the Northern gene pool. For that matter, so is Trump. So are the people who followed a black guy in a posh NYC store just because he was black. It happens everywhere, and your generalities are neither accurate nor helpful.

No, that is what you want to read me as saying.  I’ve been aware of it through your innuendos; perhaps I should have addressed it earlier.

You are misdirecting my point.  You think it's all genetic.  I’ve not said anything about a gene pool.

I’ve been talking about cultures, not gene pools.  I can't repeat the significance of this too much: the north was characterized by an economic system, driven by mercantile and industrial interests; the south was driven by agriculture and cash cropping, motored by slavery.

Thus in the northern folks were schooled by appreciation of systems and algorithms, which yield an abstract way of thinking.

In the south they completely ignored inculcating of any sort, because they could just lay down and let slaves do everything.  So luxurious was the ante-bellum lifestyle, that southerners were devastated by the loss of slavery in 1860.

The offshoot was, they had no schooling in abstract thought, and so everything was visceral.  As a result, they easily turned to violence as an immediately available action--that’s when, incidentally, the ku klux klan was formed.  At the same time, because of lack of training, southerners dragged their feet on any kind of innovation, which is why they lag behind in science, industry and education.

Everything goes back to the lack of abstract thinking in the south.  Instead of thinking in terms of systems and pre-conceived ideas, they respond to everything in noncognitive and emotional terms.

Their culture drives this.   It has nothing to do with genetics.  In fact, if it were genetic I could feel sorry for them.  But because their thoughts and actions are of their own agency, well…I feel sorry for their having been born into that culture, but each individual perpetuates those cultural themes.

Look, you know how you meet a person and don't like them?  That's the same way I feel about certain cultures.  Their presumptions, habits and beliefs rub me the wrong way.  Think of yourself being exposed to Nazi Germany in 1936...the presumptions, habits and beliefs.  You wouldn't hesitate in your condemnation, would you?  It's like that.

Quill wrote:

Look, you know how you meet a person and don't like them? That's the same way I feel about certain cultures. Their presumptions, habits and beliefs rub me the wrong way.

Not very “left wing” of you...is it?

eddie wrote:Quill wrote:

Look, you know how you meet a person and don't like them?  That's the same way I feel about certain cultures.  Their presumptions, habits and beliefs rub me the wrong way.

Not very “left wing” of you...is it?

Would you embrace Hitler and the culture he reared?  Stalin?  Pol Pot?  Idi Amin?  I'll bet I can find a dozen cultures you would condemn out of hand, because of the way they came about and the way they behave.

What you don't see is the close equivalency of how I think, and how you think.  Perhaps it's reduction of cognitive dissonance, but we all build walls around our judgments in order to shelter them.  Judgments are not bad.  What matters is, are they supported by facts?  Could you bring a strong case to support your judgment, as I have with southerners?

Or, don't you care about blacks hanging from poplar trees?  Because that's the cost if people shrug, and don't condemn hateful acts and the people who commit them.

Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote:First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And, those among our members who champion your sheltered approach?  They are they are not with you; they are just sheltering their own prejudices and hate.

Sorry, but that's the harsh reality of hatred and evil.

Can you list the “certain cultures” who’s “presumptions, habits and beliefs” rub you the wrong way?

eddie wrote:Can you list the “certain cultures” who’s “presumptions, habits and beliefs” rub you the wrong way?

Any culture that treats fellow human beings inhumanely.  

Even then, I don't dislike southerners who demonstrably commit inhumane acts.  I just don't want to be associated with them. That's why my answer is not to condemn them, but to simply separate myself from them.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Can you list the “certain cultures” who’s “presumptions, habits and beliefs” rub you the wrong way?

Any culture that treats fellow human beings inhumanely.  Even then, I don't dislike southerners who demonstrably commit inhumane acts.  I just don't want to be associated with them.

You haven’t been specific in your reply because when you said you didn’t like certain cultures because their “presumptions, habits and beliefs rub you the wrong way”, you seemed as though you knew which ones they were. So excuse me if I’m confused.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Any culture that treats fellow human beings inhumanely.  Even then, I don't dislike southerners who demonstrably commit inhumane acts.  I just don't want to be associated with them.

You haven’t been specific in your reply because when you said you didn’t like certain cultures because their “presumptions, habits and beliefs rub you the wrong way”, you seemed as though you knew which ones they were. So excuse me if I’m confused.

That's because I was talking about my judgment and how it is formed. If you want examples, start with Nazi Germany.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Any culture that treats fellow human beings inhumanely.  Even then, I don't dislike southerners who demonstrably commit inhumane acts.  I just don't want to be associated with them.

You haven’t been specific in your reply because when you said you didn’t like certain cultures because their “presumptions, habits and beliefs rub you the wrong way”, you seemed as though you knew which ones they were. So excuse me if I’m confused.

That's because I was talking about my judgment and how it is formed.

I understand that Quill. What I asked was for you to tell me which cultures they were.
You’re the one who made the statement so I assumed you would be able to list them.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's because I was talking about my judgment and how it is formed.

I understand that Quill. What I asked was for you to tell me which cultures they were.
You’re the one who made the statement so I assumed you would be able to list them.

If you want examples, start with Nazi Germany.

Miss Lopez is not a southerner. Like many Texans she is of Hispanic heritage.

Not that that matters.

Original Quill wrote:Where do they love guns?  Where do they hate blacks?  Where do they burn churches?

I'm not talking about individual acts.  I'm talking about the whole collection of events...you might say a culture.  Do you reckon this happen in Minnesota?



And women too?



Denial is a river in east Africa.

Are the folks hanging on those ropes not southerners based on your definition of southerner?

Maddog wrote:Are the folks hanging on those ropes not southerners based on your definition of southerner?

Are you asking if Jews were not members of Nazi German society?

Yes they were.  But they were the victims of the brutality.  What condemns a society is its willingness to allow this sort of thing to happen systematically.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Are the folks hanging on those ropes not southerners based on your definition of southerner?

Are you asking if Jews were not members of Nazi German society?

Yes they were.  But they were the victims of the brutality.  What condemns a society is its willingness to allow this sort of thing to happen systematically.

So do you have problems with Germans or just Nazis?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you asking if Jews were not members of Nazi German society?

Yes they were.  But they were the victims of the brutality.  What condemns a society is its willingness to allow this sort of thing to happen systematically.

So do you have problems with Germans or just Nazis?

Jesus Christ, I get so fookin' tired of explaining this.

I have a problem with cultures...especially those who victimize and dehumanize without cause. Present day Germany is not associated with Nazis.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So do you have problems with Germans or just Nazis?

Jesus Christ, I get so fookin' tired of explaining this.

I have a problem with cultures...especially those who victimize without cause.

So you have a problem with the German culture for allowing Nazis to do what they did. Got it.

Missed you princess.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Jesus Christ, I get so fookin' tired of explaining this.

I have a problem with cultures...especially those who victimize without cause.

So you have a problem with the German culture for allowing Nazis to do what they did.  Got it.  

Missed you princess.  

Are you making this up as you go along, Redneck? This is a southerner trying to cerebralize. They don't get to far before the red light goes on.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Jesus Christ, I get so fookin' tired of explaining this.

I have a problem with cultures...especially those who victimize without cause.

So you have a problem with the German culture for allowing Nazis to do what they did.  Got it.  

Missed you princess.  

Are you making this up as you go along, Redneck?  This is a southerner trying to cerebralize.  They don't get to far before the red light goes on.

Allow me to jump back in. Was the German culture to blame for Hitler or was it victimized by Hitler?

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you making this up as you go along, Redneck?  This is a southerner trying to cerebralize.  They don't get to far before the red light goes on.

Allow me to jump back in. Was the German culture to blame for Hitler or was it victimized by Hitler?

In a sense, it contributed.  Germans were late to the colonization craze, indulged in by Britain, Portugal and Spain...and to a lesser extent France and the Dutch.  The German desire for a role among the big dogs fed into their theme of lebensraum, the idea that they were entitled to do what the British and French had done...take land away from others and populate it with their own.  In the parochial world of Europe, they felt entitled.  It was their place in the sun.

The Germans became militaristic under Fredrick I, and that fed into the propensity toward authoritarianism, which shaped Nazi society.  But this didn't happen without the extraordinary nationalism of German thinkers.  The nationalism of these German ideals spread to people, and that (along with lebensraum) led to thinking about themselves as superior, entitled people.  Hence, the attitude toward Poles and Russians...and of course, throughout Europe, toward Jews.

You see how themes interact to create a slice of any culture, at any given time.   Today German society—having been severely spanked in two World Wars, and long divided by a Cold War—has joined in a larger European Society.  After WWII, America assumed a leadership role under the Marshall Plan, and created NATO as well as the United Nations, which has shaped Europe in the late-20th century.  This had the strong effect of dismantling 19th century German ideology, leveling German superiority thinking, and infusing American ideas of cooperation in democracy.

Modern European fits well with Germany's American-given sense of cooperation.  This is a theme that Britain still resists, and has led to Brexit, which plays out as we speak.  Germany, however, thrives in this environment, which gives it the principal role it always sought.