Child Rescued from West Columbus Pond

Child Rescued from West Columbus Pond

There are 167 comments on the WBNS story from May 11, 2013, titled Child Rescued from West Columbus Pond. In it, WBNS reports that:

A child is rushed to a Columbus hospital after being pulled from a pond. It happened just after 3 p.m. at a pond on Farmhouse Lane in west Columbus.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WBNS.

Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#134 May 13, 2013
3/3

Within the underclass, the vacuum has been filled by a distinctive, separate code. Call it thug code: Take what you want, respond violently to anyone who antagonizes you, gloat when you win, despise courtesy as weakness, treat women as receptacles, take pride in cheating, deceiving, or exploiting successfully. The world of hip-hop is where the code is openly embraced. But hip-hop is only an expression of the code, not its source. It amounts to the hitherto inarticulate values of underclass males from time immemorial, now made articulate with the collaboration of some of America's best creative and merchandising talent.

Thug code is actively espoused by a tiny minority of the population, and probably not even by many of the kids who love hip-hop. But it is vital, confidently celebrated by its adherents, and coherent. And there can be no counterweight from an elite that has lost the confidence to say, "We will not stand for this." If you doubt the impotence of ecumenical niceness, consider the recent reaction to the white rapper Eminem. His misogyny and homophobia are a direct, in-your-face challenge to the most central elements of ecumenical niceness, thrown down within an industry that passionately condemns any whiff of discrimination against women or gays when it is done by a peer. If the dominant minority still possessed a cultural code with spine and élan, Eminem would have no more chance of recording his lyrics than a four-letter word had of getting into Sports Illustrated in 1960.

Toynbee entitled his discussion "Schism in the Soul" because the disintegration of a civilization is not a monolithic process. As elite culture begins to mimic proletarian culture, remnants of the elites become utopians, or ascetics, or try to reinvoke old norms (viz. the words you are reading). To recognize a disintegrating civilization, Toynbee says, look for a riven culture--riven as our culture is today.

For every example of violence and moral obtuseness coming out of Hollywood, one can cite films, often faithful renderings of classic novels, expressing an exquisite moral sensibility. On television, the worst-of-times, best-of-times paradox can be encompassed within the same show-- "The Sopranos," "Allie McBeal," and "The Simpsons" come to mind. In social life, there are signs that the family in the upper half of American society is beginning to reknit itself, even as it continues to disintegrate in the lower half. Religion seems to be taken more seriously by today's elites than it was 20 years ago.

I used to think these contrasting trends foreshadowed a bimodal America, with the elites doing well and the underclass growing. Now I hear Toynbee murmuring "Remnants" in my ear, and I am not so sure.

If he is right, bean-counting doesn't work in this case. Whether a culture turns out bits and pieces of the admirable is irrelevant to understanding where it stands on the trajectory of history. If the question is whether America's elites are being proletarianized, the answer is found by identifying the things that are no longer taken for granted. It may be a positive sign that important voices have again begun to talk about virtue, but the salient fact is that they must start by defending the proposition that virtue and vice are valid concepts. Important voices are talking about the coarsening of American life, but the salient fact is that they can no longer appeal to a common understanding of vulgarity and a common contempt for the vulgar. In these senses, the elites have already been proletarianized, and only remnants protest.

...
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#135 May 13, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's certainly not the S&M stuff that observant Catholic Bob is in to....
Jokes aside, I'm not into any of that stuff at all other than the occasional 2 minute video link someone might send me. Most of it is garbage and the last thing I want to do is help line the pockets of the Jewish pornographer.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#136 May 13, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Interpretation, which you are famous for; Ms. report abuse is taking care of this forum. Thank goodness.
And archived for reposting after the next round of deletions.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#137 May 13, 2013
Free Pizza 4 U wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be willing to bet that you are aware that porn is free on the internet.
I bet bet you load up on Enzyte and make a night of it huh.
I was joking with someone from New York on another board about the same subject, basically saying the same stuff I say here.

He took issue when I said that even European girls know how to keep their legs together better than Americans and started flaming me. When I clarified between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, he came over to my side agreeing to me about Catholic girls from Southern Europe and saying something to the effect that Northern European girls in New York are sluts.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#138 May 13, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>

"The sexual revolution did not start in the free-loving 1960s as is commonly thought, a University of Florida researcher says. It began with the “silent generation” of the 1940s and ‘50s, which as its moniker implies, didn’t talk much about sex."
http://www.research.ufl.edu/publications/expl...
Betty Friedan went into this pretty thoroughly in her book The Feminine Mystique. The Post WWII generation, which some have come to think of as being sexually repressed actually assigned a hypersexualized role to women. Schools of Home Economics at the college level embraced a curriculum which emphasized that a woman without a man and without children could never be fully actualized. They tended to dissuade women from other fields of study on the grounds that such a choice would result in women sacrificing a resolution of their sexuality.

A good bit of this went back to Freud whose study of the psyche of women was likely colored by his own rather cold relationship with his own wife and by the fact that the women who sought him ought were representative not of women with healthy sexual development, but rather those with various pathologies.

Friedan supported her observations with interviews with college co-eds, the changing roles of the heroines in magazine stories for women, actual college curricula as well as an examination of the post WWII birth rate in the US as compared to Europe.

If you have never read it, I recommend it to you. It is very dense reading, but also very enlightening. Also interesting is that the book far exceeds the amount of work required for any PhD level dissertation. Yet, while awaiting publication, when Friedan applied to graduate school she was received as a "housewife" who had been out of school too long and it was suggested she just go back and be happy with her life.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#139 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. The life I lead is pretty much "by the book". I have religion and people who set good examples for me to thank for that and that is why I value the faith.
For others? They are too far gone to ever understand any of this so I don't waste my time on them. That's why they can abort to their heart's content, sodomize to their hearts content and engage in whatever instant gratification behaviors the Jews told them to. Just leave me alone and except for my paying for your abortion voucher, leave my wallet alone.
Again, I suggest to you that Christianity is not about following the rules.

It is about accepting a relationship exemplified by grace. I'm not about to try to tell you whether you do or do not accept that relationship. Just want to point out that if all you are willing to look at is outward behaviors (such as refraining from killing, stealing or messing around), you really have missed the boat.

“MAGA”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#140 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
And archived for reposting after the next round of deletions.
Please don't forget the pizza guy in your reposts.
I expect to be out of here shortly.

“MAGA”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#141 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I was joking with someone from New York on another board about the same subject, basically saying the same stuff I say here.
He took issue when I said that even European girls know how to keep their legs together better than Americans and started flaming me. When I clarified between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, he came over to my side agreeing to me about Catholic girls from Southern Europe and saying something to the effect that Northern European girls in New York are sluts.
Really Bobby boy who cares?
You seem to be overly concerned about womyn keeping their legs together, yet not the slightest concern about your sports heros dittaling adolescent boys.

consistency pleeaasee.

You're not a NAMBLA guy are ya?
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#142 May 13, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Betty Friedan went into this pretty thoroughly in her book The Feminine Mystique. The Post WWII generation, which some have come to think of as being sexually repressed actually assigned a hypersexualized role to women. Schools of Home Economics at the college level embraced a curriculum which emphasized that a woman without a man and without children could never be fully actualized. They tended to dissuade women from other fields of study on the grounds that such a choice would result in women sacrificing a resolution of their sexuality.
A good bit of this went back to Freud whose study of the psyche of women was likely colored by his own rather cold relationship with his own wife and by the fact that the women who sought him ought were representative not of women with healthy sexual development, but rather those with various pathologies.
Friedan supported her observations with interviews with college co-eds, the changing roles of the heroines in magazine stories for women, actual college curricula as well as an examination of the post WWII birth rate in the US as compared to Europe.
If you have never read it, I recommend it to you. It is very dense reading, but also very enlightening. Also interesting is that the book far exceeds the amount of work required for any PhD level dissertation. Yet, while awaiting publication, when Friedan applied to graduate school she was received as a "housewife" who had been out of school too long and it was suggested she just go back and be happy with her life.
Communism, socialism, atheism, sexual freedom are all related themes of the Marxists. They sold people on a life of instant gratification and others doing the heavy lifting on their behalf.

It's all part of the same theme ... neuter the church and the family in order to empower the state. That's why so many people believe that a child belongs to the "state" and not the family ... because they have no concept of what it is and how it is the bedrock of our society.

What they achieved (with the help of their useful Protestant idiots) is creating the most miserable class of people in the history of humanity. Middle aged shews who don't know how to be a wife and get dumped by their husbands. Women who know no sexual boundaries. Kids who only experience nuclear families on TV ... and even that's becoming less common.

This did not happen before 1960 or at any time before that and there is a reason for that: People had enough common sense to know that EVERYTHING begins with the nuclear family AND THAT MEANS ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN AND (GOD WILLING) ONE OR MORE CHILDREN.

This is common sense, but common sense seems to be lost on the idle overeducated Kulaks of the baby boom generation.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#143 May 13, 2013
Free Pizza 4 U wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Bobby boy who cares?
You seem to be overly concerned about womyn keeping their legs together, yet not the slightest concern about your sports heros dittaling adolescent boys.
consistency pleeaasee.
You're not a NAMBLA guy are ya?
gokeefe (you exposed yourself with NAMBLA), I don't have any sports heroes. I'm not into pop culture except for the goofy things I hear in the media.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#144 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are the one who is deluded by your Jewish masters and the communist sleeper cells who invaded this country in the 1950's.
READ BELOW. This is a passage written on another board by an educated Muslim. This was also the way ordinary Christian women comported themselves prior to when people like you and Sandra Fluke were brainwashed into being the tarts you are today.
Until 1960, this was the reality for Catholic women as well. It still is the reality for Catholic women outside the West.
========
I was raised muslim and grew up in 4 different middle eastern countries. In all my years living abroad I didn't once hear of anyone having premarital sex. Its important to consider that the social circles I travelled in were very wealthy, well-educated and "westernized" and thus called liberal muslims. The liberalization of muslims is very interesting in that they do take in elements of western culture such as education and relative gender equity but they always seem to stop short at sex. This class of the muslim population doesn't adhere to the old school social order where men and women are segregated. Men and women work along side each other, form close friendships and even date! While they may fool around and partake in romantic gestures- sexual activity is reserved solely for after marriage. From what I have seen and the discussions I have had, muslims- especially those who are educated look at western sexual culture in a very negative light. What we perceive sexual liberation as modern and progressive they view our casual sexual dalliances as primitive and borderline barbarian. That westerners can't keep their libidos in check is looked upon as a serious lack in decency, sophistication and civility.
Saying I'm deluded isn't the same as me actually being deluded. All historical accounts show that premarital sex has been a part of every culture. Birth records prove this to be true as well. As for me, you don't know me, you don't know anything about my history and you certainly don't know about my sexual history. You're not an embodiment of any religion, much less Christianity.

Men are much more promiscuous than women. This is a fact. This has been proven. Men have more sexual partners on average than women. That is a fact. So, by your thinking, it's men who are the problem here. Men are apparently the ones who cannot keep their pants zipped up. Men are the ones who are not subscribing to some religious notion that they should remain chaste. Men are the only impregnating women, sometimes multiple women at a time. Regardless of how many men a woman sleeps with, if she becomes pregnant, she won't become pregnant during that time. The man can go out and inseminate many other women.

Seems you're just angry because women are no longer under the thumb of men.

Your account of history is flawed and refutable. You've got no proof of anything other than your skewed perception of gender roles. Furthermore, you've shown you are a CINO and have a great hatred toward your fellow mankind. God told you not to do that. Jesus died so you'd be forgiven of your sins and you repay him with hatred, intolerance, bigotry and lies.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#145 May 13, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Betty Friedan
Friedan = J

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#146 May 13, 2013
It's laughable how uninformed you are. Do you know anything about the history of marriage? Did you even know that many people, especially people in the western part of the U.S. during the 1800s were not legally married, but common law? These people even had children, which you would label a bastard. The bureaucratic institution of marriage as it is known today is not how it has always been.

You need to read the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and read up on the history of marriage, particularly in this country. You are very misinformed and ignorant on the subject.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#147 May 13, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying I'm deluded isn't the same as me actually being deluded. All historical accounts show that premarital sex has been a part of every culture.
You know nothing of what you speak. I am intimately aware of traditional Catholic and Orthodox culture as it exists in places like Southern Italy, Spain, Croatia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Mexico. These behaviors were never heard of in those places until the last 50 years. Even to this day, there is a very strong, stubborn majority of people in those societies that refuses to adopt your Sandra Fluke lifestyle.

This lifestyle still exists and and I know it for a fact. It is the main reason why there is a 9% divorce rate in Italy and Greece, and 45% here.

==========

Question: "Premarital sex – why are Christians so strongly against it?"

Answer: Premarital sex involves any kind of sexual contact prior to entering into a legal marriage relationship. There are a number of reasons why Scripture and traditional Christianity oppose this. God designed sex to be enjoyed within a committed marital relationship. To remove it from that context is to pervert its use and severely limit its enjoyment. Sexual contact involves a level of intimacy not experienced in any other human relationship. When God brought Adam and Eve together in marriage, He established the “one flesh” relationship. Genesis 2:24 tells us that a man will leave his family, join to his wife, and become “one flesh” with her.

This idea is carried through in the New Testament as well; we see it in Jesus’ words in both Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7. Paul elaborates on that idea in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, in his discussion of God’s lordship over our bodies as well as our souls. He says that when a man has sex with a prostitute, they have become “one body”(verse 16). It’s clear that the sexual relationship, no matter the context, is special. There is a level of vulnerability one experiences in a sexual relationship which should only occur within a committed, trusting, marital union.

There are, in general, two contexts for premarital sex. There is the “we love each other and are committed to each other, but just don’t want to wait to be married” sexual relationship, and there’s “casual sex.” The former is often rationalized with the idea that the couple will surely marry, so there’s no sin in engaging in marital relations now. However, this shows impatience and disrespect to oneself, as well as the other person. It removes the special nature of the relationship from its proper framework, which will erode the idea that there’s a framework at all. If we accept this behavior, it’s not long before we’ll regard any extra-marital sex as acceptable. To tell our prospective mate that they’re worth waiting for strengthens the relationship and increases the commitment level.

Casual sex is rampant in many societies. There is, in truth, no such thing as “casual” sex, because of the depth of intimacy involved in the sexual relationship. An analogy is instructive here. If we take a sticky note and attach it to a piece of paper, it will adhere. If we remove it, it will leave behind a small amount of residue; the longer it remains, the more residue is left. If we take that note and stick it to several places repeatedly, it will leave residue everywhere we stick it, and it will eventually lose its ability to adhere to anything. This is much like what happens to us when we engage in “casual” sex. Each time we leave a sexual relationship, we leave a part of ourselves behind. The longer the relationship has gone on, the more we leave behind, and the more we lose of ourselves. As we go from partner to partner, we continue to lose a tiny bit of ourselves each time, and eventually we may lose our ability to form a lasting sexual relationship at all. The sexual relationship is so strong and so intimate that we cannot enter into it casually, no matter how easy it might seem.

...
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#148 May 13, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
It's laughable how uninformed you are. Do you know anything about the history of marriage?
No, I am very informed. It's laughable how uninformed YOU are because you only know the lifestyle of the western secular puppet of the Jewish sexual revolution peddlers.

On the other hand, I was immersed in another lifestyle and I know that world still exists.

That makes you the ignorant one.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#149 May 13, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Betty Friedan went into this pretty thoroughly in her book The Feminine Mystique. The Post WWII generation, which some have come to think of as being sexually repressed actually assigned a hypersexualized role to women. Schools of Home Economics at the college level embraced a curriculum which emphasized that a woman without a man and without children could never be fully actualized. They tended to dissuade women from other fields of study on the grounds that such a choice would result in women sacrificing a resolution of their sexuality.
A good bit of this went back to Freud whose study of the psyche of women was likely colored by his own rather cold relationship with his own wife and by the fact that the women who sought him ought were representative not of women with healthy sexual development, but rather those with various pathologies.
Friedan supported her observations with interviews with college co-eds, the changing roles of the heroines in magazine stories for women, actual college curricula as well as an examination of the post WWII birth rate in the US as compared to Europe.
If you have never read it, I recommend it to you. It is very dense reading, but also very enlightening. Also interesting is that the book far exceeds the amount of work required for any PhD level dissertation. Yet, while awaiting publication, when Friedan applied to graduate school she was received as a "housewife" who had been out of school too long and it was suggested she just go back and be happy with her life.
I have only read excerpts, but never in its entirety.

It's classic misogyny that places the blame of sexual promiscuity upon the woman, since she is known as the gatekeeper of sexuality. Men are likely to have had more sexual partners in their lifetime and are also more likely to have sex outside the marital relationship.

Some people just want to deny the truth, which is that if there is any issue pertaining to sexual promiscuity, the bulk of it lies with men. The very notion that having sex with multiple partners or sex out of wedlock is a new idea is hilarious to me. Puritanical ways of thinking are what's new, comparatively speaking.

EB obviously knows nothing of history or any type of other facts for that matter.

“MAGA”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#150 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
gokeefe (you exposed yourself with NAMBLA), I don't have any sports heroes. I'm not into pop culture except for the goofy things I hear in the media.
HAHAHAHAHA

livin' inside your head bobby boy

So you R A NAMBLA member then?

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#151 May 13, 2013
Sandra Fluke! Sandra Fluke! lol Is that all you got? Running around screaming Sandra Fluke? How flattering to her that you seemed to be strangely obsessed with her sexual behavior. I know more about what you're talking about than you do.

You're ignorant of facts, you're ignorant of history and you're ignorant of social behaviors. You've proven this time and again. You've also proven that you only direct your animosity toward women and see male promiscuity as an acceptable thing. Tell me, are you as upset men using condoms as you are about women who want to use the pill? Probably not. You have not once raised any issues pertaining to male sexual behavior, which shows that you're more than likely a sexually repressed male who is lacking in virility and probably has been snubbed by many women, maybe even your own mother. You demonstrate classic signs of a sexual deviant, and to some extent, a serial killer, since many of them tend to be sexual deviants as well.

You're textbook.

“MAGA”

Since: May 13

Columbus, OH

#152 May 13, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have only read excerpts, but never in its entirety.
It's classic misogyny that places the blame of sexual promiscuity upon the woman, since she is known as the gatekeeper of sexuality. Men are likely to have had more sexual partners in their lifetime and are also more likely to have sex outside the marital relationship.
Some people just want to deny the truth, which is that if there is any issue pertaining to sexual promiscuity, the bulk of it lies with men. The very notion that having sex with multiple partners or sex out of wedlock is a new idea is hilarious to me. Puritanical ways of thinking are what's new, comparatively speaking.
EB obviously knows nothing of history or any type of other facts for that matter.
But you find him interesting huh?

Get that burka on and prepare for your daddy to exact the punishment that you know you want.

WOLF

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#153 May 13, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am very informed. It's laughable how uninformed YOU are because you only know the lifestyle of the western secular puppet of the Jewish sexual revolution peddlers.
On the other hand, I was immersed in another lifestyle and I know that world still exists.
That makes you the ignorant one.
Saying I'm ignorant isn't the same as me actually being ignorant.

You're not informed about anything. You know nothing of the history of marriage, birth rates or anything related.

You just use buzz words like "Jews" "Communists" "Marxists" and "Sandra Fluke" because that's all you have. You're a broken record on repeat, regurgitating the same incorrect information over and over again.

Lacking knowledge due to your own prejudices makes you responsible for your own ignorance. Not only are you willfully ignorant, but you're an angry, hateful person who constantly goes against the teachings of the very religion you claim to embrace and receive these notions of how things "should be." Worse than anything else, you're a hypocrite. Even many of your own have turned against you on this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
illegals rape 14 year old girl at Rockville High 1 hr allRapistsR illegal 35
jonjedi 3 hr jonjedi 38
On the Lighter Side...... 3 hr jonjedi 3
And the Reason Trump Fired Preet is...... 3 hr jonjedi 3
Obama Tapping Melanie Trump, Terrible New Low! 3 hr jonjedi 7
Donald Trump didn't win because he's Donald Trump 3 hr jonjedi 488
Sneaky, Diversion Statements from Trump 3 hr jonjedi 3
Breaking news....... 4 hr jonjedi 80
Donald Trump Administration 4 hr jonjedi 677
Odds of Trump's impeachment 4 hr jonjedi 305

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages