None, I expect. She apparently could have gotten a lot of guys on LRC to empty their piggy banks if she had advertised on LRC, but anyone on LRC would have blabbed/bragged immediately.
misewell b wrote:
how many of her clients were you creeps?
I don;t think this is true. I'm sure we can come up with numerous examples of perfectly normal, successful adults whose childhoods' included much more traumatizing incidents, particularly involving parental actions. The family appears to be well off, Suzy will cut a book deal, possibly a movie deal, talk shows, etc. The kid will grow up, and one day receive a windfall. I think we could even find "legal" business people-parents and politicians who have much greater affect on society and their own kids' futures that you have managed to screw up their kids more than this will. Nevermind certain self-interested, self-centered youth sports-parents, youth celebrity-parents, etc. who have already factually (as opposed to theoretically, here) ruined their kids' childhoods for the sake of their own personal interests.
When you think about it, what a POS she is.
Think about that little girl.
Obviously they will have to move, and her entire life will be uprooted--everything she knows, all her friends, the whole thing. That poor kid will probably be massively f'd up by the whole thing.
She KNEW the day of reckoning would come--it always does. Why take the chance and risk screwing up an innocent young girl's life?
SFH is just another POS who has ruined an innocent kid's life--pick whatever mental illness you want out of the DSM as an excuse, there's a new one coming out soon that will increase your range of options.
What an a-hole. (Cue the inevitable jokes)
Or to summarize your opinion more intelligently -
Only idiots aren't moral relativists. Being a moral relativist doesn't mean you don't think anything is wrong, it just means you have no durable absolute criteria to judge it against. Every effort to rationalize morality fails (see "the trolley problem" and other scenarios that lead to moral dumbfounding)
I saw that book in a store: http://www.amazon.com/Ho-Gold-...0873515013
Front page of Fox sports:
"Ho for the gold"
There is no objective, universal standard of right and wrong in moral relativism.
So you believe we have reached the pinnacle of what we consider moral? Liberals and conservatives can't even agree. Each side thinks the other is stupid (as if a deficit of intelligence leads to moral differences) because they can't see the obvious moral views of hte other.
You clearly didn't read the Prinz piece - thinking something is morally relative doesn't mean it is morally permissable - it means I have no absolute standard by which to judge my dislike of it. Morality is about emotion. Learn to live with moral relativism - that we can declare things wrong while realizing we are the ones doing the declaring.
There is no moral force in the universe dictating right and wrong. Obviously, even a God wouldn't solve the problem.
So modern western liberals (or conservatives, or libertarians) have reached the endgame of moral belief?
Your objections are more on the lines of "how horrible moral relativism would be" rather than "moral relativism is wrong". Show me where right and wrong is handed to us (and revealed religion makes the problem worse, not better).
nothing about that is ironic
Barbi Too wrote:
She's bisexual.......! This I gotta see:) Ironically, I am a woman and I'd be all over that:):):)