I figured it was generally understood that that one is a no-go in most all situations. I mean you only need to do it once to learn what happens if you do.
Playing devil's advocate here, could it be that they ran something like a baby euthanasia outfit? like, no contraceptives back then, extreme social stigma surrounding birth out of wedlock, poverty forcing women to give up their newborns, giving them up to the nunnery, which had no resources to deal with feeding caring and raising thousands upon thousands of children, and so either A) simply took it upon themselves to take the logical step and cull some of them, or B) that a high number of babies died of natural causes (neglect, malnutrition, sudden infant death syndrome, disease, whatever) and they simply disposed of them.
I don't know what else could explain this, it's not like we're seriously talking about gangs of murderous baby killing nuns roaming the streets at night and snatching up babies by the hundreds for lust murders, right?
As far as I'm concerned, the only crime here is the institutionalized psychopathy of a religious patriarchal system that refused to take responsibility for giving people a legal and moral avenue to raise children that were brought into life in violation of religious law.
Makes more sense to me at least, I may be fuck way off wrong.
No, Israel is at war with Iran, not the other way around. Don't try and Ukraine invaded Russia this shit. They're in violation of international law and should be unanimously and globally condemned like the sick rabid little terrorist state they are.
They have nukes by the way. And we're apparently A-OK with that! Fuck the USA for enabling that infected boil on humanity's progress.
Compare how and why people cheer for sports teams. If you're affiliated you will support any statement in favor of the team, while ignoring, suppressing, or attacking any statements to the contrary.
You won't debate a Trump troll out of supporting Trump, because it's about belonging to a group and showing loyalty regardless of facts. Honestly I'm not surprised he's doing so well, consider how techy most of us are and still get overwhelmed by what the Internet is shaping up to be. If you're in your 50's from a poor rural area, what chance have you got to stand against weaponized online propaganda?
We are all like this, by the way. The inclination to blind affiliation with groups is the result of very deep, very old, very well studied cognitive structures and behaviors.
Here's some introductory reading that might fundamentally change how you perceive people's participation in groups:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html
The Robber's Cave experiment - arbitrarily divide a group into two, and watch the inevitable descent into inter-group conflict (hopeful note: if you make the groups try to overcome a common obstacle, fighting goes away)
Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Tests - This is an interesting one as well, here's the idea:
Experiment: Infiltrating a doomsday cult before, during, and after the date of their supposed apocalypse, Festinger and his fellow scientists noted that instead of losing faith, members doubled-down on their beliefs after the ‘end times’ came and went — eventually believing that their work saved the world.
Conclusion: When we have two (or more) incompatible thoughts, we adjust them to minimize internal conflict, what Festinger called ‘cognitive dissonance’ — a term that explains the mind state of those unwilling to accept information that conflicts against their belief.
The only thing more tiresome than their constant fucking projection is the people too fucking dumb to see it.
It's a scam, and people keep falling for it over and over and over and over and o