[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
…I see a million circumstances which I can’t control where abortion might be more humane than life…
[/quote]
You simply can’t claim the idealism of being “more humane” when…with premeditated intent you murder an innocent child. Or support it.
Can’t do it.
I don’t need some long winded, sophisticated thesis to support this view. It’s really simple.
[/quote]
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This is the same logic mis-step you accuse pro-lifers of. Just like I am not in support of punishing people for aborting when their situation is beyond the scope of what I will ever have to deal with, I’m not for saying that anyone who has a situation beyond the scope of what I can imagine should be forced to abort.[/quote]
What’s wrong with euthanizing impoverished children? If euthanizing a human life in the womb doesn’t rise to the level of a legal question, because, hey, it may be more humane to make a decision for that human life…why isn’t it possibly humane to do the same with the impoverished? Heck, those kids will already had to have suffered a couple years of misery.
And hey, the situation of the person having the abortion is never worse than the aborted. The aborted are dead. Robbed of even hope, despite whatever station they may be born into.
i feel neglected.
can i have my own funny pic with something like “non-theist culturally conservative french socialists : we aren’t perfect / we are just better than you” ?
pretty please with sugar on top.
[quote]kamui wrote:
@joebassin :
i feel neglected.
can i have my own funny pic with something like “non-theist culturally conservative french socialists : we aren’t perfect / we are just better than you” ?
pretty please with sugar on top.
[/quote]
Don’t know about french socialist but may be you will like this one.
[quote]
Don’t know about french socialist but may be you will like this one.[/quote]
let’s say i appreciate your efforts.
a funny thing about “french socialists” and abortion :
in France, the first laws legalizing abortion have been defended and voted by the Right, specifically the christian democracy.
The main opponents of legalized abortion were… the lembers of the Communist Party. 'cause they were natalists.
Strange, it isn’t ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
Don’t know about french socialist but may be you will like this one.[/quote]
let’s say i appreciate your efforts.
a funny thing about “french socialists” and abortion :
in France, the first laws legalizing abortion have been defended and voted by the Right, specifically the christian democracy.
The main opponents of legalized abortion were… the lembers of the Communist Party. 'cause they were natalists.
Strange, it isn’t ? [/quote]
Strange indeed.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
One last thing :
if you really want to know if the legalization of abortion caused an increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortion, you don’t need to compare a Belarussian apple with a peruvian orange.
You just need to take a before/after picture, country by country.
And you have to take historical dynamics into account.
If you do that, you will see that :
-the early legalization of abortion in the west led to the development of many new abortive techniques and drugs, which then became available easily, massively, at a worldwide scale. Those are now used everywhere, even in countries where abortion is still illegal.
-this obviously led to a global increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortions.
Stating that the “legalization of abortion has no impact on its prevalence” is pure unadulterated bullshit. [/quote]
You are completely ignoring the fact that abortion’s legalization has mainly been pushed by medical communities who realize that abortion was already happening behind closed doors in very dangerous ways because the women were coming to them after they’d done it. Even in countries where abortion is legal, the attitude toward the woman seeking them is a large factor in whether ot not she turns to a doctor or a backwoods midwife equivalent. In Indonesia, for instance, abortion is viewed as illegal even though the law regarding it is confusing at best. The medical community has been pushing to change tis law for the better part of a century because they had so many incidents of women dying due to home abortion methods. The main cause of the women attempting this is the fact that, just like in most developing countries, their honor is wrapped around their virginity. In addition, there’s a trend of waiting until they’re older to get married. Humans have the basic drive to reproduce. The result of this isn’t hard to comprehend. In addition, in Indonesia at least, rape has been a major contributing factor for political reasons that are a bit removed from the conversation.
If abortions are to be reduced, the attitude toward teen sex much first change a bit to allow them greater access to contraceptives, and this starts with the parent’s attitude regarding discussing it with their children.
Push- If you aren’t willing to talk with your kids about sex, tell them where they can find birth control, and discuss relationships, you must know that they’re going to have sex somewhere else, with someone else’s instruction about contraceptives, and have to figure out from scratch what you already know about a healthy relationship. I watched plenty of my friends with extremely religious parents who believed that sex and marriage go hand in hand go through the figuring it out themselves dance. It wasn’t fun to observe in some cases. I especially wish my childhood best friend’s parents had been more involved in her relationships instead of pretending that she was going to take their advice about the whole thing and wait until marriage. Her babies daddy might have been much better or there might not have even been a daddy.[/quote]
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
One last thing :
if you really want to know if the legalization of abortion caused an increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortion, you don’t need to compare a Belarussian apple with a peruvian orange.
You just need to take a before/after picture, country by country.
And you have to take historical dynamics into account.
If you do that, you will see that :
-the early legalization of abortion in the west led to the development of many new abortive techniques and drugs, which then became available easily, massively, at a worldwide scale. Those are now used everywhere, even in countries where abortion is still illegal.
-this obviously led to a global increase of the number/rate/ratio of abortions.
Stating that the “legalization of abortion has no impact on its prevalence” is pure unadulterated bullshit. [/quote]
You are completely ignoring the fact that abortion’s legalization has mainly been pushed by medical communities who realize that abortion was already happening behind closed doors in very dangerous ways because the women were coming to them after they’d done it. Even in countries where abortion is legal, the attitude toward the woman seeking them is a large factor in whether ot not she turns to a doctor or a backwoods midwife equivalent. In Indonesia, for instance, abortion is viewed as illegal even though the law regarding it is confusing at best. The medical community has been pushing to change tis law for the better part of a century because they had so many incidents of women dying due to home abortion methods. The main cause of the women attempting this is the fact that, just like in most developing countries, their honor is wrapped around their virginity. In addition, there’s a trend of waiting until they’re older to get married. Humans have the basic drive to reproduce. The result of this isn’t hard to comprehend. In addition, in Indonesia at least, rape has been a major contributing factor for political reasons that are a bit removed from the conversation.
If abortions are to be reduced, the attitude toward teen sex much first change a bit to allow them greater access to contraceptives, and this starts with the parent’s attitude regarding discussing it with their children.
Push- If you aren’t willing to talk with your kids about sex, tell them where they can find birth control, and discuss relationships, you must know that they’re going to have sex somewhere else, with someone else’s instruction about contraceptives, and have to figure out from scratch what you already know about a healthy relationship. I watched plenty of my friends with extremely religious parents who believed that sex and marriage go hand in hand go through the figuring it out themselves dance. It wasn’t fun to observe in some cases. I especially wish my childhood best friend’s parents had been more involved in her relationships instead of pretending that she was going to take their advice about the whole thing and wait until marriage. Her babies daddy might have been much better or there might not have even been a daddy.[/quote]
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Am i still allowed to tell my daughter
-“not with this stupid punk”
-“please, leave the dog alone”
-“i think 72 is a bit too old” ?
you know moral people (“conservatives”, if you want) are involved in their teenager’s sexual safety. They doesn’t tell their children “wait until you’re an adult and you can understand it better”.
They usually teach their children the various risks of sexuality. They just don’t think that unwanted pregnancy is the only risk there is. And they don’t think their job is done once they have said : “do as you will but be careful”
And they are right.
To put it simply : please, spare us the strawmen (and, ironically, the sermon).
[/quote]
This is where we’re running into communication issues; American’s actually DON’T tell their kids about sex in the way you’re thinking. Did you even read the link posted by Ephram? I can assure you that many parents here DO tell their kids “Wait until marriage” and “You wont understand it properly until you’re an adult, therefore don’t do it.” I can tell you this with 100% assurance because I have both EXPERIENCED it from adults in my own life here and watched many, many parents tell their kids these things. We’re not making this up; this is really how American’s DON’T accept that their kids are going to have sex as a teen.
I think you must not have read the article Emphram posted, and therefore, I’m going to post it here just to finalize us being on the same page regarding the issue:
When 16-year-old Natalie first started dating her boyfriend, her mother did something that would mortify most American parents: She took her to the doctorâ??s office to get her contraceptives. Her mother wasnâ??t weirded out by the fact that her teen daughter was about to have sex â?? in fact, she fully supported it. She merely wanted to make sure that she was doing it safely, and responsibly. A couple of months later, when it finally happened, her parents were totally accepting. As her father put it, â??sixteen is a beautiful ageâ?? to lose your virginity.
If that seems like an unfamiliar attitude toward sex and parenting, it might have something to do with the fact that Natalieâ??s parents arenâ??t American â?? theyâ??re Dutch. They are one of dozens of Dutch families interviewed by Amy T. Schalet, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, in her new book, â??Not Under My Roof.â?? Schaletâ??s book compares the sexual attitudes of American and Dutch parents and her findings are nothing short of staggering: Whereas most American parents panic about the idea of allowing their kids to have sex with other kids under their roof, for many Dutch parents, itâ??s not only fine â?? itâ??s responsible parenting.
As Schaletâ??s extensively researched, fascinating work shows, the Netherlandsâ?? radically different approach to sex and child-rearing has managed to radically decrease levels of teen pregnancy, abortion and sexual infections. It has fostered closer relationships between teenagers and their parents, and helped make teenagersâ?? first times far more pleasurable. â??Not Under My Roofâ?? is a startling wake-up call about Americaâ??s largely misguided attitudes toward sex and growing up.
Salon spoke to Schalet over the phone about the sexual revolution, Americaâ??s â??slutâ?? problem and how the new generation is changing our attitudes toward sex.
As you point out in the book, the statistical differences between American and Dutch teens when it comes to sex is pretty staggering.
Yes. The pregnancy rate is about four times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands and abortion rates are about twice as high. HIV rates are about three times higher. Growing up in the Netherlands, I didnâ??t actually know of any teenagers who became pregnant as teens. Whenever I say that to Americans theyâ??re always very surprised.
But as you point out in the book, itâ??s not because American adolescents are having way more sex â?? itâ??s because the culture around sex is so different, and itâ??s especially ironic because people think America was so utterly transformed by the sexual revolution. Why didnâ??t those cultural changes filter down to the way we think about teens and sex?
Thatâ??s the million-dollar question. When the sexual revolution did happen [in the Netherlands], contraception was made very widely and easily available, including to teenagers so the teenage pregnancy rate really dropped. In the Netherlands, thereâ??s the belief that young people are capable of recognizing when theyâ??re ready and self-regulating as opposed to the notion that they have raging hormones that are out of control. Thereâ??s the belief that young people can fall in love and that their sexuality is anchored in relationships so it becomes easier to accept and normalize relationships from about 16 to 17 onwards. And finally thereâ??s been an attempt on the part of Dutch parents and the authorities to say, â??This is happening, and we need to keep it from being secretive. We need to be able to keep control and be able to recommend that young people use contraception and see who theyâ??re becoming involved with.â??
That seems counterintuitive to many Americans because they associate â??sexual freedomâ?? with things going totally awry. In the U.S., there was a strong counterreaction to the changes of the 1960s and â??70s. The religious right organized, and sexuality, especially teen sexuality, became a political issue. But regular people also feel the same way and think that teen sexuality is out of control. In the U.S. thereâ??s a belief that, when it comes to sex, girls and boys are engaged in a battle instead of a relationship and thereâ??s resistance to the idea that boys and girls can both feel both love and lust. Itâ??s partly the result of the American emphasis on individualism that suggests that to become an adult, you have to first separate from your family and become completely self-reliant before youâ??ve earned the right to engage in sex. That makes it harder for parents to then integrate it into the family in the way Dutch parents have.
As you mention in the book, in America we tend to separate sex and love â?? and donâ??t believe that teenagers are able to associate the two. Why do you think that is?
To me thatâ??s always very fascinating. When I did interviews in the U.S., I was really struck when parents would say, â??Well, teenagers think theyâ??re in loveâ?? and they would hold up their hands with quotation marks. The U.S. is very strongly tied to the model of marriage. We donâ??t want 15- or 16- or 17-year-olds to marry but we donâ??t think a relationship is love unless itâ??s the one and only, the person youâ??re going to marry forever. Itâ??s also tied to individualism, because if you believe that intimate relationships are threatening to young peopleâ??s developments, and that you have to do things on your own first and then settle down, then everything you do before settling down is not going to be about love. And yet, young people do form relationships that are very important to them. They look different from adult relationships but theyâ??re real relationships a lot of the time.
As you point out in the book, thereâ??s an emphasis in the Netherlands on making sure that a teenagerâ??s first time isnâ??t just safe â?? but actually fun and pleasurable. That seems too alien to the way we learn about losing your virginity.
I think thatâ??s right. It is so difficult in the American context to say that a first sexual experience should be positive and pleasurable and one that one feels ready for personally, physically and emotionally. In the chapter about the Dutch parents, a father tells his daughter that she should never do it unless she has the desire for it. He acknowledges that his daughter might actually want it, and that is a very difficult thing in the U.S. context for a lot of parents to do, especially for girls.
Itâ??s fascinating that the â??slutâ?? label, as you point out in the book, doesnâ??t exist in the same way in the Netherlands as it does here. Here a lot of girls get called a slut simply for having a desire for sex.
It exists, but even in the way it exists itâ??s much milder, and itâ??s really not about sex per se, itâ??s about the number of partners and especially the frequency or speed with which one would go from one to another. So if a young woman is in a relationship and she wants it and she enjoys it, thatâ??s fine. I find this to be one of the most fascinating aspects of American culture that that remains so unspeakable.
In pop culture, being a slut is considered either despicable or something to aggressively celebrate (i.e., the recent SlutWalks). But there isnâ??t much in between, especially for adolescent women, that just treats female sexuality as normal and healthy.
I didnâ??t see the first episode of [the new TV show] â??Suburgatory,â?? but the premise is that the father finds condoms in the drawer of his daughter and so they move to the suburbs to avoid sex. The girl is 16 or 17, and so thereâ??s this idea that a father fulfills his parental duty by removing sex altogether. Of course he doesnâ??t succeed, and she ends up making out in the locker room or wherever. But I agree there are very few pop cultural models of young women having positive sexual experiences that are not in some way a cause of drama.
Many of the American parents in the book have a kind of hilarious double standard. They are fine with their kids having sex outside of their home, but as soon as it happens inside their house they freak out.
I donâ??t want to spoof it too much even though it does look silly. Thereâ??s really no narrative for American parents to draw on to understand a positive sexual development on the part of their children and how theyâ??re supposed to relate to it. So the not-under-my-roof idea is the dominant understanding of what you do when youâ??re a responsible adult. So you do get situations where the mother knows her 17-year-old daughterâ??s boyfriend and that sheâ??s on the pill but even though the mom knows she has sex with her boyfriend, the daughter is not allowed to be home with the door closed when the boyfriend is in her room.
What do you think can be done to American sexual education to change this?
I support comprehensive sex education. [laughs] Iâ??m laughing because thatâ??s the line everybody says, but I think that itâ??s important both in and of itself that young people learn about sexuality, contraception, relationships. I think thereâ??s an absence of language about relationships [in sex ed] and that it should be integrated more into schools. Sex education, when done well, can help parents open up the conversation at home. In the U.S. this narrative gets created of â??sex ed vs. the parentsâ?? as opposed to those two working in complementary fashion. Only half of American girls have had a conversation about contraception with their parents. In the Dutch case, one of the girls learns about the pill at school during what is called â??relationship lessonsâ?? â?? yes, thatâ??s really what itâ??s called â?? and she comes home and her mother explains that she also uses the pill.
In a lot of public health campaigns and even with clinicians thereâ??s such an emphasis on the risk, risk, risk, risk, without an emphasis on this is what you can do, this is how you can exert agency. Where exactly do you go to get contraception, and condoms? But I do see a lot of parents who want to be doing things differently. I speak mainly to professionals but they also respond as parents, and theyâ??re really looking for a better way of recognizing that young people have real emotions, and to stay connected to teenagers during their adolescent developmental phase.
Itâ??s really hard not to think that things are so much better in the Netherlands after reading the book. It almost seems utopian.
Itâ??s not utopian. There is such an emphasis on relationships that sometimes the differences in power between girls and boys do not get as much attention as they perhaps deserve. Part of what goes on in the Dutch families is a system of control. It can be cozy, but it also can be a little claustrophobic. I think some of the American models of being able to deal with cultural difference within a society are a good thing, and I like to think that cultures can learn from each other.
American culture does seem to be changing, though, in its attitudes toward marriage. Gay marriage is becoming more common and accepted, and straight people are staying single longer.
I definitely think that the acceptance of gay marriage is a very positive development. I also see a shift among youth, away from the kind of narrow definitions of what is intimacy or acceptable intimacy. I think thereâ??s a whole new generation of people thatâ??s not saddled with the old antagonisms that came out of the 1960s. When I teach classes at the University of Massachussetts, students say, â??We are the generation that will change things in the U.S. just like they changed in the Netherlands.â?? Thereâ??s a real interest among young parents in handling sexuality better than it was in their family. We need to figure out how to stop falling back on the marriage-only model and we need a model for a good relationship that isnâ??t necessarily for life but that still involves mutual respect, and honesty, and mutual obligation as well as enjoyment and pleasure.
[/quote]
This wall of strawman still doesn’t adress the fact that the life you take in an abortion is a human one. If you think it’s ok to take human life under certain circumstances, fine, but don’t limit it to just premies. There’s lot’s of useless people in the world, you should wish to take them out too.
It’s not a religious, cultural or political issue. You’re either killing a person or not, bottom line. Forgive me for getting all religious, but killing people I think is generally a bad thing.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
Mwuahahahaha…
I shall get back to that…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
Mwuahahahaha…
I shall get back to that…[/quote]
Most likely with more sodomized logic…[/quote]
Just because it hurts it does not mean that someone is fucking you.
Srsly
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
Why, why, why, so soon.
Lack of impulse control, thats why.
You are prolly younger than 25 and your frontal cortex is not fully developed.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
Mwuahahahaha…
I shall get back to that…[/quote]
Most likely with more sodomized logic…[/quote]
Just because it hurts it does not mean that someone is fucking you.
Srsly[/quote]
Why did you ruined this relatively clever reply with a “srsly” that make you sound like one of my student ?
srsly ?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
Mwuahahahaha…
I shall get back to that…[/quote]
Most likely with more sodomized logic…[/quote]
Just because it hurts it does not mean that someone is fucking you.
Srsly[/quote]
Why did you ruined this relatively clever reply with a “srsly” that make you sound like one of my student ?
srsly ?[/quote]
Because, I kind of, like, totally, thought it was, like, necessary.
The English language is not a goddess to be worshiped, but a wench that needs to be bedded thoroughly.
In all kinds of ways.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s still murder.[/quote]
[quote]
No, you’re completely ignoring the fact that your “solution” isn’t a solution at all, and until something better comes along, contraception and education are the best bet we have.
Just because you feel put at ease by the law stating that it shouldn’t be done, doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. If it were that convenient, we wouldn’t have rapists and murderers.[/quote]
I didn’t put forth a solution. I saying that killing a tiny human is still killing a human. Killing humans is either wrong or it’s not. It really is that simple. If you have to sodomize basic logic and reason to have a point, you probably don’t have one. [/quote]
Pro-life “solution” = Make it illegal. Done and dusted, we can ignore the problem now, the law will take care of the people breaking the law!
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[/quote]
Wars of Henry II of England and Philip II of France
Stephen and Matilda conflict
Saintonge War (1242)
War of Saint-Sardos (1324)
Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453)
Parts of the Italian Wars (1511-1559)
War of the League of Cambrai
Anglo-French War (1627-1629)
Second Anglo-Dutch War (1666-1667, France sided with the Dutch Republic)
War of the Grand Alliance (Nine years war) (1697) (formerly the League of Augsburg)
Williamite War in Ireland
King William’s War
War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713)
War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748)
Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) - The first true ‘world war’ that weakened Britain and led to:
The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) - Which was aided by Louis XV then Louis XVI who got e’s 'ed chopped off by:
French Revolutionary Wars - Fueled by Jefferson and co. then:
The Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815)
War crimes froggie; centuries of war crimes and egregious outrages. Every froggie needs to learn history and contemplate the meaning of the words “perfidy” and “insolence.” That will do for starters froggie.