Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Sydney Watson" channel.

  1. 53
  2. 48
  3. 31
  4. 29
  5. 25
  6. 25
  7. 19
  8. 19
  9. 19
  10. 18
  11. 15
  12. 13
  13. 9
  14. 8
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 6
  20. 6
  21. 6
  22. 5
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. ​​ @wtfimcrying  That's not true. Homeschooled children do fine socially. They really do better because they socialize with adults in the worst case scenario. Most people that homeschool connect with other parents and set up field trips and outings. They are also in organized sports at the Boys & Girls Club. As for worrying about their peers if they don't have a phone, you're the parent. Their peers aren't feeding them, clothing them, etc. What they think isn't relevant. You're coming off as wanting to be your child's friend. Will you put yourself in the poorhouse because your child won't have the newest gadget like a friend might? My sons didn't have a phone until high school. They didn't have a smart phone until college. They were limited on computer time and weren't allowed online at all until they were older and always monitored because there are very bad people out there. Making personal and face to face connections are important to development. So it's interesting that you're worried about social development when it comes to homeschooling, but not when it comes to making sure they can communicate outside of messaging. Edit: My sons are Gen Z. I'm going to assume you're a Millennial or later because you care why too much about what others think to be Gen X. My degree is child psychology. Both my sons are well adjusted, caring, responsible, productive members of society. Your job as a parent is to raise good future members of society. That's it. Not to be their buddy. Not to be their personal bank account. To be a parent.
    3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48.  @jones1351  One huge problem with that strawman you just built. That letter of intent isn't binding. You can also leave the military. You just have to pay back the government or smoke some pot for a dishonorable discharge. You can't replace your ovaries or testicles. As for top surgery, correcting it is very difficult and a lot more expensive than chopping them off. You have to slowly inflate a balloon to create skin to close around the implant which will be difficult due to scar tissue and it will be nearly impossible to make them look right. That's why if you have a mastectomy you're asked beforehand if you plan on reconstruction because the surgery will be done differently. I can find studies that claim the wonders of a lobotomy and that smoking is healthy. Psychology is a soft science so screaming about the scientific method when it comes to that field is laughable. There are too many variables that can't be included a study because it's genetics, environment, and several other things. A parent saying no about a piece of candy when you were 3 can change your outcome to someone else. Edit: I'm an actual child psychologist so if you want to play the appeal to authority card, I've got that covered. Just so you're aware, those that practice psychology and those engaged in research don't usually agree. We're the ones that have to deal with the fallout of all their studies and the real world results. We're dealing with a second adolescence because of parents reading "studies" and researchers publishing books.
    2
  49.  @Mikerille  It was the Japanese that were cornered off after WWII. The Chinatown in San Francisco has existed for 170 years. It was an immigration point of entry for the Chinese in the 1800s. They were created by Chinese immigrants because there was an economic downturn and they were driven out of jobs in the gold mines. They lived near each other and supported each other's businesses in that area and thus Chinatown was born. Just like there are little Italy's, Chinatown was created similarly. As for your claim about leftists, the Democratic party is 40% "Progressives" which are the ones pushing the censorship, socialism, and the woke mess. Democrat leadership and voices (like journalists) have been calling for those that supported Trump be rounded up and put before Reconciliation councils, that they be denied jobs until they repent, and various other things to prevent them from daring to do that again. I guarantee you more than 10% agree on some level with the Progressives, so no the left is no longer a majority of moderates. That's why it's been bleeding moderates and continues to do so. Since you don't know anything about the history of Chinatowns, it's not surprising you don't know what's been happening now. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US so I have no idea where you get 40,000. Yes the majority of citizens speak English. It's required for citizenship, which my husband just got Friday. It's required for the majority of jobs as well. That's why almost all products have a label in English only unlike in Canada which has English and French. I'm curious why people like you are fine with illegal immigration when it directly affects the ability of minorities to get jobs, especially blacks. It's also interesting that you're fine with their low wages and few protections under the law. If they get seriously injured on one of those hard labor jobs, they don't get anything because they aren't covered by Worker's Compensation and can't receive disability. To me it's little different than China's labor force and how they are treated and not far from slavery honestly. I guess you're argument is they do jobs white people don't, when the reality is they do jobs well off white people won't.
    2
  50.  @easternrebel1061  See you can't have the US or the Constitution if you eliminate liberalism. The US is founded on liberal ideals. The Constitution is built on their foundation. This isn't Europe where there are different types of governments to pull from or try to return to that weren't liberal in history. Every political party in the US, at least major one, is liberal. Progressivism has advanced here to the point it has become illiberal. You should also be made aware every political party has everything from slightly the opposite to hard left/right historically. It's only recently that one party has become solidified and driven out most of its moderates, centrists, and slightly leaning the other way. As you've pointed out, it's not Republicans. Contrary to how you're framing the left (they are no longer really liberal as they embrace more and more progressives), it is not a good thing that they are so cohesive. As those not in line get pushed out, it weakens the party's political power and ability to maintain a majority. Either you're European or you don't understand or aren't as educated in US politics as you're attempting to make yourself seem. A lot of people tend to confuse conservative with religion as well. That's because Reagan focused the party to cater to them to get them as a large voting block. It's not because conservatives identified with them. Just as the party is now starting to focus on the working class because they have been abandoned by the left. The focus of parties change as the political needs of the people change. The parties always contained a mix because it forces them to compromise on issues so the country functions better and the people are represented.
    1