Well, it arcs back to abortion, the pill and the new age rape right. The oedipian reaction of disgust at one’s mother belies that if there was a way to rape the mother or have her raped, that the id monster part would find it appealing. Taking it on children is often a manifestation of that id. A jackal is a dishevelled dark haired jackal, whether male or female. All this “gay cute” niceness out there is terribly deceptive and full of denial. These are grown “animals” which happen to also look at themselves in a mirror, something other animals do not partake in (making them as a result more submissive and knowledgeable of their master than we would, ie. respect of environments and God).
Liberals approach it as a way to avoid “details” for “better more important things”. I seem to remember that, however, Hitler admirers also view things statisticaly, calling the Holocaust a “detail” of WWII. They all embrace the same language of pragmatism when in fact they do not care in the first place. World scale or local scale, how one cares for someone is all the importance.
I am not sure I understand your post. What arcs back to abortion and the pill? I have never heard the term new age rape. What do you mean by that?
Do you believe the oedipius complex is valid? I reread your post several times and couldn’t discern your stance.
I do not believe that boys want to have sex with their mothers. Freud was a degenerate that projected his own sick ideas onto the masses. I place no faith at all in psychoanalysis.
People that commit crimes like the one in the article are not animals. They are evil.
Obviously I am a Christian. I believe the Bible. It states that all are born in sin. All have a conscience but through acts of evil can have their consciences seared.
I am not trying to be argumentative at all. I truly didn’t understand your post.