Wrong Turn and the sequels.

@RobertMartin That, the documentary The Whitaker Family and other stories I've heard.

@MichelleGar1 I'll have to see if I can find the Whitaker family on any of my streaming channels.

@RobertMartin I saw it on YouTube, very creepy! One of the members just knows how to bark and act like a dog! It's a trip!

@MichelleGar1 I just watched it on YouTube. I'm thinking Ray is a good guy, too bad he cannot speak. It was creepy to see these inbreds and how they live in absolute squalor.

@RobertMartin I thought so too! Just sad and creepy to me.

@MichelleGar1 I will look for that one.

I recommend "Hillbilly Elegy" with Glenn Close. It is mostly about substance abuse, and other dead-ends, people without much hope hurtle themselves down. It is also set in KY. But both of those states abut OH, which I see as the rotten evil root of them all.

And if you want to see a real horror about Ohio? Besides "Children of the Corn."

You could also check out the documentary "Goodnight, Sugar Babe" That is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. Both were on Netflix as of a few months ago.

On edit I added commas because I was not saying "dead-ends people."
And it looked like I was.

@BufftonBeotch I saw Hillbilly Elegy, it was good, yes it's about drug addiction. It was Glen Close who played Amy Adams mother.

I've seen Children of the Corn, like the name Malachi because of that movie, I went through a horror movie phase in my teen year's.

I'll have to check out Sugar Babe, haven't seen it or heard about it. Right now I'm watching Age of the Samari on Netflix, also a documentary and very violent.

@MichelleGar1 You are right about Glenn Close. She did such a great job in that movie if you see the real woman in the video clips at the end. I will fix.

@BufftonBeotch Yes, I saw the end clip, Glen Close nailed that character!

@MichelleGar1 Sex abuse, at least attempted was implied.

That is why Grampa lived down the street.

@BufftonBeotch That's right, so much wrong with that family but then again what families are without it's problems. Some not as intense as incest or attempts of it.

@MichelleGar1 And Isaac, the really freaky character was played by a guy in his twenties. (Children of the Corn) He had a hormone deficiency and stayed very small stature as an adult.

@BufftonBeotch The other actress that had that disorder was the one who acted like Chevy Chase's daughter in Vacation. She passed away at an early age.

@MichelleGar1 The son in Christmas Vacation is better known as Leonard from Big Bang and the daughter is a Natural Born Killer.

@MichelleGar1 Dana Hill. Diabetes complications at just 32. Very sad.

"I didn't know then what a sperm was, and so wouldn't understand his answer for several years. "My boy," he said, "you are descended from a long line of determined, resourceful, microscopic tadpoles-- champions every one.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, Galápagos

one could argue that they are mostly caused by mistakes their parents made i guess

He has made up his mind, and he will thank you to not confuse him with facts.

If God does in fact exist, he is cruel and has a fucked up sense of humor.

@RobertMartin I read somewhere that the Jesish god was originally the minor war god in a pantheon of gods.

Within Mormonism where I came from, birth defects were explained as something the individual and/or those around them needed to learn from being disabled. In this way, birth defects were not mistakes.

@bbyrd009 I doubt that the parents are to blame.

@nicknotes surely not in every case, but it seems hard to argue that something has disrupted the normal course even in the other ones; the "natural" analogue would be mutations, seems like
i mean blame a God (you) do not believe in if that makes it better, but i dunno

Science trumps religion.

@Mooolah science could be responsible for the mutations, a la atrazine frogs, etc?

@bbyrd009 - God allowed atrazine's creation, so it is either perfect as it is or God made the mistake of allowing its creation. An omnipotent and omniscient God would know about its formation in time, and would have the power to prevent it from being made.

Science still trumps religion.

@RussRAB well, you can define God that way if you like, but what if He is not interested in complying? And wadr i'm not quite sure what religion has to do with that; sounds like science has been made into a religion tbh?

@bbyrd009 - Defining God as being omnipotent and omniscient as well as a few other 'omni-' words is rather standard for Christianity. It isn't my definition we are talking about.

As for science, it has been a tremendous tool in understanding our world. Religion cannot make the same claim and has attempted to stand in the way of scientific discovery often using very draconian means to do so.

@RussRAB hey, so go with that then
but i would argue that allowing ppl to get in trouble via making poison or bombs does not necessarily preclude omniscience or omnipotence, obviously. "...and would have the power to prevent its being made" is strictly your idea, the human idea, seems to me anyway?

Since when is God required to conform to your standards, iow? Not that i disagree, understand, with your feelings

test everything, and keep what is good sounds like science to me! And if "religion" wants to stand in the way of that, then i guess it will pass away right? Although i suggest that that is a pretty simplistic perspective, and that i could point out stories about the very supposed upholders of our beloved scientific method that sought to impede progress too.

"Scientists" are really no less religious than anyone, most of the time
imo

@bbyrd009 - "
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God.

Epicurus, 341 BCE - 240 BCE

Science is not religion no matter how you choose to regard it.

@RussRAB "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?" no; at least according to the Bible, Yah creates evil, sorry
" Then he is not omnipotent."
ok well i am not a gnostic, so i'll leave you to adjust for the apparent truth up there

"Is he able, but not willing?"
nope
" Then he is malevolent."
same reply
"Is he both able and willing?"
also no, apparently
"Then whence cometh evil?"
near as i can tell, by ones subjective determination of it, aka eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge
"Is he neither able nor willing?"
again, apparently not
"Then why call him God."
"God" is actually a quite generic name/title i guess, i would never use such a term for Yah myself
you are Elohim, according to the Bible

Epicurus, 341 BCE - 240 BCE

"Science is not religion no matter how you choose to regard it."
i could provide many, many examples of scientists whose religion is science, as could Ole Roemer (Cassini) and many, many others, with all due respect.

Science can easily become one's religion--no matter how you choose to regard it--and imo you even know all the mantras, "just the basic facts," "i'll decide based upon the evidence," and other auto-jerkoff type statements, no offense meant. But they're almost pure crap, and scientists are/can be among some of the most emo panty-waist bunch of money-grubbing egotists on the planet, at least in my experience, which is i guess why they usually get the guillotine second

i hear "scientist" with the same ear i hear "i'm saved" with, most times, and i don't recall ever being sorry yet. Anyone who claims to be a "scientist" is--just like believers--trying to score some cheap points imo, at least broadly speaking.

Epicurus did say some decent stuff imo--even got a nod from Paul in the NT i guess?--but wadr i'm afraid he is as guilty as everyone else of expecting Yah to conform to his desires

now i don't mean to say i don't appreciate your idealistic viewpoint viz "science," i'm an idealist myself, but unfort it seems for every Tesla we get like a million Edisons. Ppl being discredited/ruined for life and impoverished, if not outright murdered, are the hallmarks of "science"

@bbyrd009 - The definitions Epicuris writes are rather straight forward regardless of your attempts to obfuscate them. If as you say God creates evil - and I agree that God would necessarily need to if one is monotheistic - then God is malevolent.

Plenty of legitimate and accomplished scientists also subscribe to a religious belief whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or something else. Science is not a religion and in the estimation of a number of scientists (as well as other people) is compatible with all sorts of religions.

From the on-line dictionary:
Science (1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Religion (1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (2) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

@RussRAB "The definitions Epicuris writes are rather straight forward regardless of your attempts to obfuscate them."
i didnt mean to obfuscate there so much as to point out that epicurus apparently had no desire to deal with "God" as he found Him, that being One Who admits to "creating evil," which v was extant in his time

"If as you say-" i did not say that tho; the Bible does. i was quoting
"-God creates evil - and I agree that God would necessarily need to if one is monotheistic - then God is malevolent."
well, you and epicurus are certainly free to define "God" as you see fit, but i suggest that you will be defined in the process. I am more or less free of gnosticism now, only flares up now and then, and i have no desire to denigrate epicurus if he is a hero to you, but he was a hedonist after all, and "Yah creates evil" is prolly not really...being heard as it was meant.

Several epicurean mantras in the NT tho i guess, hmm--despite the fact that he was surely a bloated fucker of young boys--which i find the more remarkable myself

Personally i can't help but be minded of a teenager complaining about their "evil" parents, but i guess that is prolly just a projection, and about God i really know nothing...or i'd say i maybe know about 5%, roughly the same amount of the universe that we are able to point to as "known"

"Plenty of legitimate and accomplished scientists also subscribe to a religious belief whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or something else. Science is not a religion and in the estimation of a number of scientists (as well as other people) is compatible with all sorts of religions."

ah, i kinda forgot, we are using the term "religion" differently i guess; and we are not really having a conversation on this point, at least not yet. btw did you know that our "scientists" used to be called "priests?" they were the guys who knew the "secret" of how to make bronze. Anyway i take religion to mean "done by rote, ritual," but i guess a scientist might also have "religious" beliefs too, sure. But thats not what i (and others before me, here even) likely mean by "science can be a religion"

kind of more like "science can and often is used as a cover for ones subjective determination," being as how we, humans, tend to seek "facts" that fit with our narrative, and discount facts that dont. And i am not immune to this, which is why you are likely to find me arguing against a point i might happen to believe, fwiw.

@RussRAB "From the on-line dictionary..."
not saying that dictionaries are completely worthless, but i suspect that when one gets popular the owner (Webster et al) gets made an offer they cannot refuse, as your reference of one kind of points out, dictionaries are power. Definitions change, get diluted, obfuscated, comandeered, etc. which is i guess why many still seek the "webster's 1828 dictionary" etc, but here i'd mostly like to point out your quoting of these "definitions" to me; do you think i was ignorant of them? And sure, theyre close enough i guess, for a one-dimensional first approximation, but let me suggest that there is at least quite a bit more crossover than the definitions suggest ok?

after all, what was the point of quoting the definitions? to school me on the "correct" usage, right

Ppl, "scientists" even, suffer from dunning-kruger the same as the rest of us, and "science" all too easily becomes the whore of the highest bidder, at least in practice.

I suspect that most often when someone invokes the term "science" in defense of a position that they are most likely deceived and in denial, like any other gnostic

There are agnostic scientists too--"agnostic" in the orig sense, not having anything to do with ones belief or lack of in any "God" iow--but they don't talk like epicurus, in statements of "fact." Or they make qualified statements, or i guess prolly most often speak in questions

"In 1676 an anomaly in the orbit of Io, Jupiter's innermost moon, led the astronomer Ole Roemer to make a very specific prediction. Io would appear from behind Jupiter at 5:37 pm on November 9, 1676, he said--and that would prove light travels with a finite speed. Roemer's mentor, Jean-Dominique Cassini, head of the Paris Observatory, rubbished the idea; light spread instantaneously, he said. His beliefs () led him to a different prediction. According to Cassini, it would be 5:27 when Io appeared.

Io appeared at 5:37 and 49 seconds. On hearing of this, Cassini announced that the facts fit with the story he had presented (faith). Although Cassini had made his (erroneous) prediction at a public gathering of scientists, not one of them demurred when he denied it; they all backed him up. Roemer had to wait fifty years to be vindicated; only after Cassini had died did scientists accept that the speed of light was finite."
[books.google.com]

see, scientists, you, have "beliefs" too, and although this is an extreme example, it illustrates how "science" is, after all, a tool of people, who are as full of shit as anyone

@bbyrd009 - OK, so you don't trust the dictionary definition of words and choose to use them as you understand them rather than their commonly defined understanding. Fine, but your ability to communicate with others will necessarily be compromised since you are speaking terms that your listener will understand differently. This difference in understanding terms and words is an issue in communication anyway, but your insistence to say your understanding is paramount and disgard the dictionary and its attempts for a common understanding of words only exacerbates the issue.

I find it an odd conundrum that you claim to be "free of gnosticism now" while telling others they must accept your alternate meaning of words, telling them how mistaken they are about asserting facts or opinions as if you know what you are talking about.

@RussRAB "OK, so you don't trust the dictionary definition of words and choose to use them as you understand them rather than their commonly defined understanding."
oh, i dunno, i see "ritual" etc in the def of "religion," and have allowed that they are still a decent first approach. But i would say that the def of "science" is an ideal one, imo

"Fine, but your ability to communicate with others will necessarily be compromised since you are speaking terms that your listener will understand differently. This difference in understanding terms and words is an issue in communication anyway," (speaking in tongues) "but your insistence to say your understanding is paramount and disgard the dictionary and its attempts for a common understanding of words only exacerbates the issue."
insistence? where did i insist, again?

"I find it an odd conundrum that you claim to be "free of gnosticism now" while telling others they must accept your alternate meaning of words, telling them how mistaken they are about asserting facts or opinions as if you know what you are talking about."
i told someone that they "must accept" some definition? could you point out where? and my apologies, didnt mean that at all! i thought i made clear that i have no idea what i am talking about lol, back at "5%?"

anyway gotta run, have a nice day

@bbyrd009 - In response to your additions, no one has ever claimed science is perfect or that scientists "get it right" the first time. There are many, many, many examples where the understanding of a scientific theory has been adjusted and modified over time when the initial theory doesn't match exactly with newer or more detailed observations. What is true about science is that it is self correcting when evidence can be presented to settle a point. Religion cannot make this same claim. Time and time again, claims made by various religions have been disproven, and yet the religious continue to maintain the exact same claim without any alterations. I experienced this first hand on a Yahoo discussion board many years ago discussing evolution vs. creation. It was also demonstrated in the answer to a question posed during the Ken Hamm/Bill Nye debate.

@bbyrd009 - "i thought i made clear that i have no idea what i am talking about lol, back at "5%?""

You do an awful lot of talking for someone who claims only "5%"

@RussRAB ok then, my apologies, i am usually accused of being too brief
you might note that i at least actually addressed your posts
("insistence? where did i insist, again?"
"i told someone that they "must accept" some definition? could you point out where?" )
have a good one

@RussRAB "What is true about science is that it is self correcting when evidence can be presented to settle a point."
tell that to mr roemer lol, see what he thinks

@bbyrd009 - "epicurus apparently had no desire to deal with "God" as he found Him,"

On tne contrary, I see Epicurus as approaching the concept of a monotheistic God exactly as he found him.

@bbyrd009 - "i see "ritual" etc in the def of "religion," and have allowed that they are still a decent first approach."

Please explain how ritual is a "decent first approach" and to what appraoch are you referring?

@bbyrd009 - "what was the point of quoting the definitions? to school me on the "correct" usage, right"

The point was for clarification and contrast. The rest is projection.

What is the "(speaking in tongues)" comment supposed to mean?

@bbyrd009 - "insistence? where did i insist, again?"

Your continued use of your alternate meanings of religion and science in order to equate the two is insistence they have your altered meanings.

@bbyrd009 - "tell that to mr roemer lol, see what he thinks"

I don't need to because you already stated Roamer's hypothysis was vindicated years later. Science corrected itself based on continued observation and experimentation.

@RussRAB "On tne contrary, I see Epicurus as approaching the concept of a monotheistic God exactly as he found him."
well, without the concept of God Himself creating evil then, so not ezackly
which is after all OT, avail to Epi iow

"Please explain how ritual is a "decent first approach" and to what appraoch are you referring?"
"ritual" is included in your def of religion up there, and dictionaries might provide a decent first approach at a definition, was my meaning there

"The point was for clarification and contrast."
ok, and i would recommend comparing, at least as a mental exercise; yes, ideally, your defs are fine imo, but in practice it just often does not correlate to irl

"What is the "(speaking in tongues)" comment supposed to mean?"
i suspect your explanation there covers the Scriptural "speaking in tongues" also; we all have slightly diff defs, and as a rule we all "insist" upon our own

"Your continued use of your alternate meanings of religion and science in order to equate the two is insistence they have your altered meanings."
ah. could you pls restate my "alternate meanings" if you would? ty

"I don't need to because you already stated Roamer's hypothysis was vindicated years later. Science corrected itself based on continued observation and experimentation."
ha well somehow i doubt that m roemer found that as satisfying as you currently do lol, and i hope you understand that i don't mean to disagree with you necessarily, but to point out that your pov should maybe not be taken as quite so...axiomatic?

"Science corrected itself eventually" does not preclude "science was whacked as fuck, at the time" imo
i mean, by your own admission, any "fact" you hold as gospel today might take 50 years to see any light, right?

I've long felt the same thing for steroids. Let them juice to their heart's content.

Would it makes sense to make the trans league co-ed?

I remember playing co-ed little league baseball, I was about 10 or 11. There were no issues that I recall.
Problems may arise with teens because of hormonal changes. Many teenage boys aren't comfortable around homosexuals much less transgender people.

@RobertMartin Then teach comfort.

@Mooolah easier said than done.

@RobertMartin Gotta begin somewhere. The real conundrum is how do we teach tolerance. Embrace diversity. Recognize that "their god" makes us all including those that are not like us. Its called mutations or evolution.

@Mooolah if you can't teach these morons a simple concept like "acceptance"...do you really think Your going to get them to understand "evolution"...?

@Mooolah I grew up in the 70's. It was hard enough to get the word out about racial tolerance. The gay rights movement was stil in it's infacy so to speak. Many parents back then weren't discussing gay and transgender tolerance or acceptance. Nowadays I suppose more people are open to discussing LGBQT acceptance. ( I hope I got the letters in the correct order).

@Mooolah or even just choice, huh?
well put imo

@phoenixone1 Sure. They bought the "intelligent design "concept. That is a step closer to accepting the science. A thousand years from now things will be different. Science or more dark ages.

@Mooolah actually "intelligent design is a step backwards...a HUGE step backwards...they refuse to study the possibilities and understand science so they "put it all on God....lazy persons answer to science.

After all, aren’t they all “Gods” men?

@CuddyCruiser Yeah, that's their excuse. Their "god" commanded them to be horrible cruel people, what a guy eh?

My 1st thought was "well your god made you didn't it"?

apparently w virginians disagree

prolly depends, insured wasp or charity case?

@bbyrd009 That wasn't the point. The point was about whether his imaginary sky daddy made mistakes and if they should be corrected.

NICU cases can hit lifetime insurance limits in a month, so insurance or not does not much matter.

The insane medical care system in the United States needs to end.

@BufftonBeotch i would take control of my own health and let those who take that path worry about it, tbh. Most ppl barely know what an omega 3 is. The "doctor" literally has a snake on a pole on his lapel

birth defects; "hey, your parents were irresponsible on their own, science made thalidomide, not Me!"
hermaphrodites; "thank science for atrazine, too"

@bbyrd009 What's your point in referencing a single case out of the myriad possibilities, or are you being facetious, and might I add, unnecessarily obtuse?

@Rossy92 hmm well i don't think suggesting that we are responsible for most of our ills is too out of line...so you pick

@bbyrd009 - Birth defects are not the exclusive effects of man made substances. They have been a part of human and natural history through all of the history of life. Human gender and sexual orientation issues existed for as long as human history has been recorded and no doubt much longer before that. A number of ancient and primitive cultures were able to find accomodation for individuals with differing identities within their social structure. What they didn't have is hormone therapies and surgury to change their exterior appearance. It is an error to believe these results are exclusively from man made substances. Atrazine has been shown to cause hermaphrodism in frogs, but a very different effect has been observed in other animals - particularly humans and other mammals. Thalidomide does cause birth defects in humans but to my knowledge has not been shown to effect sexual orientation or gender identity. I am not aware of any substance either natural or mad made that can predictably change either of these characteristics in humans whether exposure occurs prenatally or at sometime after the individual is born.

@Rossy92 - I am not an expert on the changes due to treatments of gender dysphoria. I have heard two anecdotal sources say that the effects of hormone treatments changes the muscles of a transgendered individual. Below is one of the sources of information I refer to, although it was some time ago that I saw it. The video is not the one I saw and there is apparently a whole series on the subject made by Rationality Rules covering a couple hours on the topic. He took quite a bit of backlash from having gotten his initial desicion wrong on the subject and these videos were his attempt to apologize and set the record straight. I attach this one even though it only alludes to the subject due to its shorter length as a reference to longer ones on the subject that can be found on Youtube. Right off, I'm not certain the one I saw is still available to be viewed.

@RussRAB Rationality Rules is one of my favorites, especially after his epic takedown of Stefan Molyneux. His videos on transgender issues I've avoided simply because the issue wasn't a priority for me. So thanks for the reminder that this something I'll probably want to delve into eventually.

@bbyrd009 You apparently subscribe to the waaay out of line notion that all was magically bliss until a talking serpent, Eve, and an apple led to some preposterous "fall".

@Rossy92 well you are the gnostic after all, eh
but no, sry

@bbyrd009 Gnosticism no...just evidence, reason, reasonableness.

@Rossy92 "gnosticism, no?" ok
i do not subscribe to any "fall" per se, but it might make a good analogy?
as to the op, i suspect that "trans" ppl have just chosen a diff way to deal with the same "human condition" that we all face, in a way that keeps the focus on themselves, as ppl are inclined to do, after all. More power to them, imo

@bbyrd009 Though at the moment it's too laborious for me to retrace my thought process, I have to admit that some limited aspects of a "fall" have on multiple occasions in the past struck me as having meritorious aspects as an analogy. About what you suspect concerning a choice in dealing with the human condition, I haven't considered it deeply enough to state a strong opinion, though I would lean toward disinclination in seeing their decision as simply a choice.