LeighA
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • LeighA

      Wikipedia: Scripturally, the Song of Songs is unique in that it makes no reference to “Law” or “Covenant”. Nor does it refer to Yahweh, the God of Israel. And it does not explore “wisdom” in the manner of Proverbs or Ecclesiastes (although it does have some affinities to Wisdom literature, as the ascription to Solomon suggests). Instead, it celebrates sexual love. It gives “the voices of two lovers, praising each other, yearning for each other, proffering invitations to enjoy”. The two voices are in harmony, each desiring the other and rejoicing in sexual intimacy; the women (or “daughters”) of Jerusalem form a chorus to the lovers, functioning as an audience whose participation in the lovers’ erotic encounters facilitates the participation of the reader. The Song was accepted into the Jewish canon of scripture in the 2nd century CE, after a period of controversy in the 1st century. It was accepted as canonical because of its supposed authorship by Solomon and based on an allegorical reading where the subject-matter was taken to be not sexual desire but God’s love for Israel. Christians admitted the canonicity of the Song of Songs from the beginning, but after Jewish exegetes began to read the Song allegorically, as having to do with God’s love for his people, Christian exegetes followed suit, treating the love that it celebrates as an analogy for the love between God and the Christian Church. Over the centuries the emphasis of interpretation shifted, first reading the Song as a depiction of the love between Christ and Church, the 11th century adding a moral element, and the 12th century understanding of the Bride as the Virgin Mary, with each new reading absorbing rather than simply replacing earlier ones, so that the commentary became ever more complex.

    • LeighA

      I never understood why people though Furbies were creepy. It’s just a toy, and it’s far from the creepiest looking toy ever. It’s kinda like a cross between a rabbit and a bird. I thought they were neat. I mean, they talked, and they “learned” English as you played with them (I remember them using that as a selling point, even though of course they were just programmed to gradually use more English and less Furbish). And apparently Chrome has “Furbish” in its spell check dictionary, even though it still doesn’t know the word “Zealand.” That’s weird.

    • LeighA

      Leaving things on random store shelves isn’t just lazy, it’s inconsiderate. The one about walking vs driving a block depends a great deal on where you’re at. If you’re in a small town, walking makes sense because a block isn’t very far. In a major city, it makes sense to walk because it’d take longer to drive anyway. In some areas (like where I live, just outside of a city), it’s feasible to walk a block as long as it’s on the same side of the road, but I’m not crossing a six lane road on foot, so anything on the other side, I’d drive, even if it’s only a block away. I’m sure there are probably areas where you wouldn’t want to walk a block even if it was on the same side, for whatever reason.

    • LeighA

      “The child inside the womb is a living, human, being.” Citation needed. It’s human, in that it has human DNA (though so do cancer cells and the majority of what makes up dirt), and it’s living in the sense that it’s eating and growing (though it’s incapable of living independently for much of duration of pregnancy, so how living it is is debatable), but it doesn’t make much sense to argue that something with no brain, no spine, and no heart is truly a human being. You can make arguments for calling it a living human being at several points after the development of those things, but an organless ball is not a human being, it’s a potential future human.

    • LeighA

      Did you seriously reply to “I don’t understand how someone can live with the burden of being forced to carry…a product of rape or a child they don’t want” by saying “there is adoption”? How in the world does that have any bearing on having to carry the baby to term? It has to be born before it can be adopted. It’d really suck if you were raped, got pregnant, were forced to watch your body change before your eyes as a constant reminder of the traumatic experience, and then suffered a not uncommon lifelong complication of pregnancy or childbirth as a result. But hey, it’s worth it for rape victims to have to physically suffer for the rest of their lives if it means there’s more unwanted babies that may grow up being passed from one potentially abusive foster home to another before being tossed out on the street at 18, right?

    • LeighA

      If you’re married and don’t want children (or already have children and don’t want more), you and your spouse should simply never have sex again until you’re no longer physically capable of having children, right? I’m sure that won’t negatively affect the marriage at all. What’s 20 years without sex, anyway? Even getting a vasectomy isn’t a guaranteed method of preventing pregnancy, so I guess the cliche of married people never having sex will just have to become a lot more accurate.

    • LeighA

      “It’s your mother’s choice if you continue to grow as a baby and eventually be brought into this world, or be killed in your mother’s womb. It sounds horrible, doesn’t it? ” I think it’s the exact opposite of horrible. I, for one, am glad that my mother chose to have me, rather than being forced to have a baby she didn’t want simply because there was no other option. Imagine how awful it would be to know that your mother wished you’d never been born and that you only exist because she had no choice in the matter.

    • LeighA

      6. Hold on, I’ll just take a picture with my phone real quick! There were camera phones 10 years ago. By about 6 or 7 years ago, it was almost impossible to get a phone without a camera (I know someone who tried, though I never understood why). 14. Oh, and let me recharge my book. Does anyone actually say that? I would think most people would say “let me recharge my Kindle/Nook/whatever.” Also, the Sony Librie launched in 2004. 17. Shoot me a text. Texts became a thing in the 90s. I’m not sure if anyone used this exact phrase then, but I’m sure they did by 2004. 25. Make sure you delete your cookies. According to Wikipedia, “The general public learned about [cookies] after the Financial Times published an article about them on February 12, 1996.” 28. We’re 69% compatible. In elementary school, we used to play this game called “True Love” where you would right your name and your crushes name down and…well, we had two different versions. One, you’d count how many letters they had in common and use that to determine how compatible you were. For the other two, you’d count how many letters you each had that were in the words “true love” (for instance, Amber Brown has T=0, R=2, U=0, E=1, L=0, O=1, V=0, E=1, and Kyle Jones has E=2, O=1, E=2), then either add them all together and multiply by ten (100%) or put the total for each word together (true=5, love =5, 55%), usually whichever gives you the higher total. Whichever way you did it, if the total was 69, you would say you were 69% compatible. 37. IDK, my BFF Jill. As a catchprhase, you are correct. That ad is only 7 years old (I could’ve sworn it was older, but apparently not). But those acronyms were common in IM speak long before 2004, so it would’ve made for a perfectly intelligible sentence. Wikipedia again: “The term BFF as in Best friends forever has been used at least since 1987.” I have no idea when people started using “IDK,” but it was no later than 2001, because they taught us “internet slang” in school that year, including that one. Sadly, I have no idea how to find the textbook (reading anthology) that was in, because I’m sure it would be very amusing to look at now. I bet it explained the “world wide web” and everything.

    • LeighA

      I’m not sure how they do things in other countries, but in the US they usually give different foods every day. Some of the things they served at my school: Horrible pizza with ridiculous amounts of grease
      Soft tacos
      Stir fry
      Chicken patty sandwiches
      Grilled cheese and tomato soup
      Chicken nuggets
      Sloppy joes
      Turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce (for holidays) With each one, you had to get some sort of fruit or vegetable. They had fresh apples, oranges, and sometimes pears, as well as little containers of fruit in syrup. The vegetables included things like broccoli, carrots, or cauliflower. I think you might also have been required to have a starch, as there were usually mashed potatoes, tater tots, fries (sometimes), or bread. There was also milk, of course. My high school had a salad bar, which you could get instead of hot lunch. About once a month, they’d give everyone a small piece of cake, and sometimes they’d give frozen fruit juice pops or some sort of cobbler or crumble.

    • LeighA

      I never knew that Canada didn’t have school lunch. I find that kind of odd. In the US, school lunches (and breakfasts) provide an opportunity for low income kids to eat even if their families can’t afford food*. I don’t think Canada has as much poverty as the US, but there must still be plenty of kids who don’t have enough food. What are they supposed to do? I would think Canada of all places would ensure they got at least one meal a day. *School food in the US isn’t generally free, but low income families can apply for free lunch. Most schools have a system in place where kids pay using student IDs or meal tickets, so it’s not apparent to other students who gets free lunch.

    • LeighA

      What if I decided to dye my hair tomorrow? Or cut it super short? I would like a lot more different from my ID photo then than this boy does wearing makeup vs not. If I felt like it, I could go from long brown hair, brown eyes, and minimal makeup (ID photo) to short red pixie cut, green contacts, and vamp makeup. And if I got pulled over, and the cop was having trouble with the extreme difference between how I look in the picture and how I look in real life, I could take out a contact and tell him I felt like changing my hair. Odds are, he’d be perfectly fine with it, though he may tell me I should get my photo retaken. There are a lot of ways people can change their appearance. This guy barely looks different with/without makeup on.

    • LeighA

      “What if he decided one day to do something illegal and he will do it without makeup?” So if a woman wears makeup for her driver’s license photo, then commits a crime while not wearing makeup, it’ll make it impossible for her to be IDed? If that were the case, women wouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup for ID photos. Oh, but then what if someone who wasn’t wearing makeup for their ID photo decided to wear a lot of makeup to commit a crime? Maybe everyone should have two photos on their ID, one with makeup and one without! Sarcasm aside, the idea that wearing or not wearing makeup would make someone harder to ID is pretty ridiculous (probably least ridiculous in the case of going from no makeup to lots of makeup, to be honest).

    • LeighA

      Inverse here. I grew up in Pennsylvania and nobody ever had to remove their glasses for ID photos. Then I moved to Florida, and here they make you take your glasses off. The idea of them doing that had never even occurred to me (if you wear glasses everyday, why wouldn’t you wear them in your ID photo). It kind of makes sense, though. It’s easy to take glasses off to compare, but if you started wearing contacts and your ID photo included glasses, it would be slightly more difficult for the person looking at the ID to compare it to you. Makeup, on the other hand, should probably be worn as it is on a normal day, whether that is a little, a lot, or none.

    • LeighA

      There’s no evidence he ever claimed to not be male. “Gender non-conforming” means not conforming to gender norms. Our society expects men to not wear makeup, and this boy chooses to ignore that expectation and wear makeup anyway. If he did identify as female, he would be transgender (not “gender non-conforming”), and the article would say “she” instead of “he.” I’m unsurprised to see the ubiquitous “there’s no such thing as transgender” argument, but it’s funny how people see a guy in makeup and automatically assume he must identify as a woman, on the basis that no man would ever do such a thing. Oddly enough, that’s the exact expectation he’s being “non-conforming” about.

    • LeighA

      Gender nonconformity is not the same as transgender. Transgender: Identifying as a different gender than your biological sex, e.g. a biological male identifying as female
      Gender noncomfority: Ignoring the societal norms associated with your gender, e.g. a man wearing makeup As far as I can tell, this is a biological male who identifies as male and wears makeup. If he were trans (identified as female), the reporting would likely say “she” instead of “he,” particularly in the quote from the executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund The lawsuit is based on the idea that your ID photo is supposed to represent how you look on an everyday basis. Since he wears makeup on an everyday basis, they’re arguing he should be able to do so in his ID photo. It’s a valid argument. On the other hand, in my state, they make you remove glasses for ID photos even if you wear them all the time and are legally required to wear them while driving (not all states do this), so it’s a policy that applies to more than just this scenario.

Show More Responses