Posted by coombz on 2016-05-27 06:27:21

so it's a 15 year old's 'duty' to die for nothing?

or rather, for a bunch of wealthy old dudes who want a war, but don't want themselves or their own sons to actually do anything

yep, confirmed Texan here guys

Posted by pythrr on 2016-05-27 06:41:12

nom, popcorn

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 06:57:47

Bill, what did your grandfather teach at Austin?

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 07:02:58

My Grand Dad taught history.

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 07:04:20

I suppose he was a liberal if he left in '36?

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 07:09:06

He died when I was 8. I wouldn't know his politics.

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 07:14:20

I think of the 183 Men at the Alamo, 14 were Mississippian volunteers.

My dad has published a book on the Alamo. That's his passion. He's really into that. I just thought I would share.

Posted by pythrr on 2016-05-27 08:01:49

it's a cool tale, Bill. thanks for sharing. our pasts are important.

Posted by jdm on 2016-05-27 08:28:05

Bill is scotch. Shocker of the day right there.

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 08:32:44

Scotch? I think he's mostly Whiskey. But perhaps also a little scotch.

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 08:36:44

I know you are being funny, but I'm Mississippian. 300 Years Plus. I'm probably more German (about 1/4) and Sioux (Maybe 1/16) than anything else. Mostly Heinz 57. I do have freckles & my beard is red (though I shave).

I think that strengthens the gene pool to mix our stuff (or at least I hope so, cause I'm all kinds of stuff).

Posted by jdm on 2016-05-27 09:28:16

"I know you are being funny". Sir, you give me more credit than I am due

Posted by awambawamb on 2016-05-27 10:37:54

do you keep alive the languages too?

Posted by ArrestedDevelopment on 2016-05-27 12:06:52

Nobody is scotch! Scotch describes whiskey only....

Hmm. Brasky. Okay, maybe possibly scotch.

Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-05-27 15:20:18

When people ask what my Ofamily origin is, I tell them my Family has been in North America since the Mayflower, which is sort of true. Like Bill my family can't be traced back to the 1700s on this continent. Mixed like the dickens, so I just reply Nortj American, with Irish, Welsh, and Greek lineage. Cool info Bill.

Posted by PurpleChest on 2016-05-27 16:04:06

Dude! On our recent Texas adventure we went to San Antonio for 2 days, partly as i had always wanted to see the Alamo. And I recall both me and my partner commenting on the 15 year old William (Bill) Philip King. As his name and age are listed there. His name and 'John ______' (a freed slave) were the ones that really stood out, as well as Davey Crocket of course. After whom my mother always claimed I was named.

I am very impressed. Though what a doomed errand to naught he died for.

Weirdly i was filmed that day, talking about that odd american thing where you cut some of your sons penis off.

https://www.facebook.com/BloodstainedMenTheirFriends/posts/699816370158381

Somewhat of a non issue everywhere else, and of course massively less worrying than FGM, but still, leave your male children un-mutilated eh Americans?

So some History is cool (the Alamo) and other bits less cool (historic child mutilation continues for no reason).

Posted by thoralf on 2016-05-27 16:50:25

Not Creole, Cajun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajuns

Which means Acadiens.

Therefore we're brothers.

Posted by licker on 2016-05-27 17:08:28

Circumcision is a non issue 'everywhere else'?

Dude, do you like not know where 'everywhere else' is?

That said, I fully agree that circumcision is pointless at best.

Posted by dashergeaux on 2016-05-27 17:09:54

Cajun and Creole are different.. Most people from south Louisiana tend to be a little of both at this point.

Creole is just of French-Spanish decent (pre Louisiana Purchase)

Cajun's had the good sense to get out of Canada and find a nice place to live.

Both cook better than you :)

Posted by thoralf on 2016-05-27 17:33:44

Here's to some good sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians

No circumcision may have been involved, so all is well.

Interestingly, there was a tier-system at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Creole_people#Race

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 17:36:47

I remember a prostitute calling once at Domian (some retired famous German radio show therapist-ish) and talking about fungal infections. As a professional she claimed that in her experience circumcised men were always much cleaner in that area. I have heard this argument a number of times and particularly that it is practiced in the US for health reasons. I remember a former girlfriend saying something like that to me too. Although fortunately in spite of not being circumcised she attested me that I was very clean.

Posted by pythrr on 2016-05-27 18:19:49

hey wreckage, TMI sir, TMI

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 18:37:20

Well I didn't get a say so in the matter. My mom had mine cut.

I do have 3 sons, and none of them were circumcised. I think it is an out-dated practice.

@PC: Did you see the Phil Collins diorama? I thought that was cool. I was in San Antonio in the summers of 2012 & 2013. I visited an old Fumbbl friend (Hark130), who lives there.

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 18:39:37

I also still have my wisdom teeth. But there is a procedure where the skin above the teeth gets cut off... You should check that out, Phytrr.

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 19:09:06

Even in 1998, 2002, and 2004 the doctors thought I was weird for telling them not to circumcise my boys.

I think it is done "because it's always been done that way."

I don't know if it is still the norm in 2016, but they thought I was some kind of weirdo back then. PC is right though, (Never thought you'd see me type that did you?) it is mutilation. There is no reason for it. Sure it's cleaner, but my kids use soap & water, which works just as good, and nobody is "George R. R. Martin-ing" little babies.

(Delete)

Posted by PurpleChest on 2016-05-27 19:33:16

licker, of course i was meaning developed western countries. Countries that still adhere to medieval religions are very prone to child mutilation.

I am a firm believer that your religious rights end at the start of someone elses body.

Posted by keggiemckill on 2016-05-27 19:46:59

I didn't have either of my boys done, even though I have been. The worst part was them try to aim into a toilet and having it go in unexpected directions. I'm sure they figured it out in the then.

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 19:55:10

Religion is one dimension of it, parental rights another..

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 20:03:16

Just my opinion but I feel like children should have stronger rights about themselves in relation to what their parents can do them. But I guess I'm pretty alone on that one. It's all about whether the government or your parents screw up your life.

Posted by BillBrasky on 2016-05-27 20:20:09

Well I think it is legal almost everywhere for a woman to kill an unborn child.

I think that's the worst crime possible. The kid doesn't even have a chance for some wrong-doing. There is no culpability.

I'm not suggesting that if a woman's life is at risk it shouldn't be an option, I am just complaining about when people chose convenience over an innocent life.

Posted by Wreckage on 2016-05-27 20:49:52

Well, that requires some deeper metaphysical look to why we even value human life so much. I like to think of it as an inclusive rule that sets a minimal limit for the constrains in which we have to interact.
Within those constrains we define human rights as absolute. A human being could be a complete douchebag and unworthy of any rights but we just draw a line and say: Your human rights will not be put into question because it is enough that you are a human. This assures what all law is supposed to do: Peaceful coexistance.
At the same time life beyond human life may also be worth protecting. Just because there is no general rule about it, also non-human life can be a source of complex social relations thus be a source of potential violence and conflict.
Traditionally human life is seen as something that starts at birth and for medical and practical reasons it seems inconsequential to me to expand the normative terminology to times before that point. Yet most legal systems do so anyways and as a result blur the normative lines by maintaining the factual necessities. On the other hand I'd conceed that although an unborn child is not yet human and only to become a human it falls into a wider scope of life that is worth for us to protect as a society.

Prior to the 20th century it was not uncommon in many places to abandon a child after birth. Personally this is where I would draw the line and say: If the child is able to survive without being sustained through the mother it is human life. Up to that point it is more of a part of the mother.

Most legal systems factually allow abortion up to a certain point within pregnancy which I believe is often along the lines of 3 month at which point that being turns from something rather cellular into something with human features. That seems factually consequential to me but I see severe issues with terminology of 'human' in cases like that. Since indeed either you are human or you are not.

In a way you are to become human by the grace of the mother. You can't become human without her.

Posted by licker on 2016-05-27 22:31:23

"
Posted by PurpleChest on 2016-05-27 19:33:16
licker, of course i was meaning developed western countries. Countries that still adhere to medieval religions are very prone to child mutilation.

I am a firm believer that your religious rights end at the start of someone elses body.
"

I'd be happy to discuss this further with you, since I suspect we actually agree quite a bit, but there are some nuances which might be interesting to learn about.

This isn't the place for that though, so I will leave it be.

Hope you enjoyed all of your visit to Texas, even though Texas is a complete and utter @#$#-hole (other than parts of Austin).

:D

Posted by PurpleChest on 2016-05-27 23:18:43

actually i had a great time thanks. Loved Houston, a very multicutural and vibrant city. Foudn San Antonio quaint and interesting and found the West country, cowboy land, to be charming.

Saw a hell of a lot of 'imprison Hillary' (and worse) stickers, and a massive amount of 'we dont call 911, we shoot you in the face' t-shirts, welcome mats, stickers etc etc.

So, loved the visit, not sure i could ever feel it was home.

Posted by licker on 2016-05-28 02:42:20

Well next time just go one state further West and I guarantee you will enjoy things even more.

Heck, I might even show up to show you around :)

Posted by FRSHMN on 2016-05-28 17:39:06

Bill wrote: "If you want my official pedigree, I'm Scottish (correction from Scotch), Irish, German, English, Native American, and French (well not France French, but from New Orleans, so Cajun or Creole?)."

Wow, Bill, that is real cool. From a historical perspective, I'd love to hear all the different stories, those relatives could tell about their lifes and experiences.


Workrage wrote: "I suppose he was a liberal if he left in '36?"

Liberal, socialist, jewish, whatever... I suppose we can say he was not a Nazi nor did he agree with what was going on in Germany by then.
Which again leads to the above mentioned: I'd love to listen to the stories he had to tell.

Posted by fidius on 2016-05-30 05:26:36

PC never fails to confirm his biases does he.