You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2006.
My comment from a thread at RWS:
The Abu Grabi pictures are no different than pictures (or behaviors) of people who practice SM, another violent and deranged form of sexuality which only liberals have managed to want to legitimize.
So I find it just a tad ridiculuous when a liberal society which is that deranged sexually has anything to say about some similar prison SM technique.
One more reason why the mind of a liberal stinks so much, the grotesque hypocrisy about the profound problems with its own sexualities.
Need to go, will clarify later – to have an idea what I am referring to, here are previous posts on the subject:
This thread developed over at RWS, so I am copying some of the discussion here:
From comments on my site – qkl : “Is there anything a person shouldn’t consent to, Andy? “
Andy is that type of guy that when confronted with a suicidal person who wants to jump off the ledge but needs a little push, they can count on Andy for it. Because Andy is just so respectful of “consensual activities.”
Andy, apparently you have not grasped that your concept of “consent” is simply horrendous. Horrendous here means: detrimental to society, irresponsible, and regarding certain issues, negligent and criminal.
alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 – 10:48 am | #
andy: Willing consent is stupid? Allowing adults to… well… be adults is stupid?
Let us take another example of Andy’s deranged mind: suppose we have two adults (in Andy’s mind that means they can do anything as long as one of them says yes). Because for Andy, “willing consent” is just a person saying yes. It doesn’t matter if the person is totally sick or criminal or deranged, as long as they say yes, Andy thinks it’s “willing consent.” So person A asks person B to stone them to death in the middle of a shopping mall, because that’s what gives them pleasure. Sure enough, Andy here would be delighted to provide all the stones and he would love to watch, knowing just much he was defending freedom, democracy, and liberalism from any horrible govt interference (ohh! those big brother meanies!). If it weren’t for Andy someone might actually prevent a brutal act and that lovely concept of “willing consent” that Andy has would be put to scrutiny.
And “allowing” adults to be adults? Oh, you mean allowing you to continue to have attitudes and behaviors detrimental to society, irresponsible, and regarding certain issues, negligent and criminal.
That’s your idea of “adulthood.”
alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 – 10:59 am | #
I’m cool. Alessandra you are an extremist.
Because I show how much you contribute to irresponsible and destructive attitudes about sexuality, drug addiction, and personal relationships?
Oh the meanie extremist!!! Oh Alessandra talks about responsibility to some crack trash! She talks about having character to a liberal!! Oh the monster. “She” should be monitered.
So, crackhead, you didn’t answer my previous questions. Too modest are you? Don’t be shy, here’s another little “extremist” question for you: is your favorite way to spread AIDS the needle or your dance floor sexual encounters?
alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 – 11:14 am | #
andy: “That you somehow associate the crime of chopping up a body after an accidental, heterosexual S&M death with the evils of homosexuality and bisexuality”
Andy, if you could understand what any of the problems in human sexuality are and if you could associate anything about them and if you could understand correctly any association that I make, instead of your repeated distortions, all of that would be a first, wouldn’t it?
alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 – 11:22 am | #
andy: The only people in my life I’ve known to have such bizarre opinions regarding sexuality are those that have been sexually abused in the past. I don’t know if you have been, but – regardless – seek help, because you’re crazy.
Hah, the exact proof of what I am talking about.
So the opinions of people who abuse or who endorse abuse (like you do) are not bizarre, but the only people you think have some bizarre opions are those whom you imagine have been sexually abused.
It’s clear that the mentality of sexual abusers is the norm for you, and not bizarre at all.
alessandra | Homepage | 04.02.06 – 11:34 am | #
Look! Andy’s been busy!!
Three men have been arrested on charges of performing castrations on apparently willing participants in a sadomasochistic “dungeon” in a rural house, authorities said Friday.
“It’s extremely bizarre,” District Attorney Michael Bonfoey said in a telephone interview. “It’s incredible the amount of ways that people can find to run afoul of the law.”
Bizarre?? Andy, please set this guy straight, hasn’t he heard of your mentally healthy concept of “willing consent?”
According to Andy, this DA is crazy because he thinks this is bizarre.
Imagine daring to think that chopping off testicles and other bodily mutilations indicate a deranged sexuality? It’s what is normal for liberals!
Hey Dave, you should start monitoring this DA!! Another extremist!!!
From a comment at ACE’s:
There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer’s research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
S.C. Approves Seeking Death for Pedophiles –By SEANNA ADCOX
The state Senate on Tuesday endorsed making repeat child rapists eligible for the death penalty, setting aside arguments the move might be unconstitutional.
“What we’ve got to do today is vote our conviction,” said Republican Sen. Larry Martin.
The proposal allows prosecutors to seek the death penalty for sex offenders who are convicted twice of raping a child younger than 11.
Currently in South Carolina, murder is the only crime eligible for the death penalty.
The proposal was approved as part of a larger bill that sets minimum sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders. The bill requires a third reading before moving to the House.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 Georgia case involving an adult victim that sentencing someone to death for rape was unconstitutional.
A Louisiana law lets prosecutors seek the death penalty for rapists of children younger than 12, and the Louisiana Supreme Court found it constitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling did not address the rape of a child.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the statute.
Although I do think prevention is where the emphasis should be, if it’s a repeat offense, fine with me to have capital punishment.
And that should shut up those liberals who always care more for pedophiles than for the child victims, all the liberals who cry out about how cruel the death penalty is, and all that nonsense. If they think it’s so cruel, I say we abuse them every time a child is a victim of a repeat offense and see how long they will keep on with their hypocritical caring for the abusers. I am sorry, I am just tired of seeing how petty and slimy this “concern for human rights of abusers” is. The objection to capital punishment is often nothing more than a profound and vile cowardice, a sentiment that only springs out of a petty privileged position in life.
Not only that, in some cases, I think the death penalty is the only punishment that even begins to address the torture inflicted onto certain children, and we shouldn’t need a repetition of the crime in order to justify the death penalty.
To note, given that a lot of parents (and relatives) are repeat rapists of their own children, I make no exception to them either. This myth that child abusers are mostly some goon-looking monster, a total stranger to the child, only serves to hide the horrible reality of intra-family abuse.
And we still don’t even begin to address the problem that most child abusers aren’t even prosecuted, much less sent to jail for even a week. ( I have a post on this, but I can’t find it).
The center was founded by Dr. Matthew Israel, who designed a shock device called a GED, or gradual electronic decelerator. The students, who have few options when it comes to schooling due to behavioral issues or mental disabilities, wear up to five electrodes at a time strapped to their arms and legs. The gadget itself is housed in a fanny pack worn by the student. If a student acts out or becomes violent with staff members, the student gets a two second shock to the skin.
But now, a Long Island, New York, woman is suing the state of New York because her son was shocked at the center. New York sent him to the center in Massachusetts after nobody in New York could treat him properly. Aversion shock therapy is illegal in New York but legal in Massachusetts.
She wants her son, Antwone Nicholson, who has severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), removed from the center. But Dr. Israel says the shock therapy was helping Antwone, just as it has thousands of others before him. Dr. Israel says Antwone’s violent episodes dropped from 5,000 a week to none after he was placed on the GED device. Antwone’s mom says she didn’t think his behavior was too bad. But she signed the paperwork for him to get the treatment. She says she didn’t think it would hurt so much.
When I went to the center to interview Dr. Israel, I tried the aversion shock device to gauge its power. I put one electrode on my arm and shocked myself using a remote control. I had been told by the center’s employees that it feels like a bee sting or a pin prick. Let me tell you, it hurt far worse than that. Two seconds felt like two minutes. It was like a parade of pins stabbing me in the arm. I could see why students would alter their behavior after feeling that sensation.
CNN lists several user comments, pro and con, this one is correctly con:
I think it’s outragous. Sounds like something the church would have used during the inquisition, had it been available, instead of the rack.
I immediately thought of the Inquisition too, and the entire history of abuse in mental institutions (all in the name of science and what-have-you), plus the whole universe of child abuse.
What these grotesque pro-schock-abuse people can’t admit is that a child is never born like that, and many abused children start reacting in aggressive and destructive ways to the abuse they are experiencing. And when they react, their garbage of abusive parents try to blame the child as if all the problems came from nowhere.
You know, maybe one way to detect child abuse would be to advertise such a method and then go secretely investigate the so very eager parents who applied to have their child shocked.
For every abusive parent we caught, we would shock the criminal “doctor” that is currently doing this.
Another situation that yields abusive kids is the child that grows up in a home where the dad abuses the mom (or vice-versa), even if the kid is not the direct target of abuse.
This is horrendous and totally reprehensible:
Hollywood activist SEAN PENN has a plastic doll of conservative US columnist ANN COULTER that he likes to abuse when angry. The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barble-like doll. In an interview with The New Yorker magazine, Penn reveals, “We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny places.”
Excellent comments from ACE thread on it:
Wasn’t there a story, right after the 2004 elections, that at some Democratic Party get-together the attendees were passing around an Ann Coulter doll and one of the George W. Bush flight-suit “action figures,” stripping them naked and posing them sexually?
…What the hell is it with these people, anyway?
…And for that matter, isn’t Penn’s behavior the way so many serial rapists and murderers get started? First it’s disgusting things with dolls, then animals, and then…well, perhaps it’s time to send the cadaver dogs out to the Penn place…
Exactly. That is exactly what encourages a lot of people to go from a disturbed representation to the real thing. And all the lack of condemnation he is getting, notice there is no great outcry about it, it just gets interpreted as a green light for a lot of people.
Now can you imagine if some conservative said they had some doll of some lesbiun moron or some black activist woman and they were burning cigarettes into them, raping them?
I call it the Clinton Effect. No matter what a repugnant hypocrite or monster you are, no matter how lunatic or horrible you are, if you hold the correct position on a topic, it’s forgivable and you’ll be defended and protected by the moonbat elites.
You could see it clearly in President Clinton when NOW defended him despite being a serial adulterer, sexual harasser, and liar who abused his marriage for decades.
Thus, Mr Penn can say something this ghastly and repulsive, something that should send the NOW into screaming fits of sexual abuse, rapist, stalker, monster, and brute… and he’ll get a complete pass. The above posters are right, this is psychotic behavior, it’s often the precursor to real evil. Assuming he hasn’t already done great evil to women.
I don’t know why the entire hardware industry has not noticed that laptop computers have such great keyboards. It feels so great to type on them. And desktop computers are odious. I don’t care to know why desktop keyboards are not like laptop ones, it needs to be changed, now. Even the sound of laptop keyboards are cute. 🙂
We must protect ourselves, we must do everything we can to ward off this evil bunny menace!
Alas, St. Paul has been saved, the fascist painted eggs threat is gone, removed by the bravest of our National guards. Relief. I will be able to sleep tonite.
From some comments at ACE, that started with “V for Vendetta” and then got into a discussion of Hero type movies and characters.
ACE on “V”:
This is part of the two problems with the Black-Costumed Man Of Mystery movie. Batman and the Crow also suffered from this problem– in order to make the hero seem bad-ass and mysterious, the director always seems to revert to turning the hero into a simply unstoppable, undauntable force of nature who is never in any real danger. He simply never comes across a credible threat, an equal to challenge him, or anything, really, that scares him or makes him doubt his own chances of success. He just shows up, kicks ass quickly and efficiently, and actually is so in command of the situation he can take the additional time and effort to pose, preen, soliquilize, and generally just toy with his adversaries.
The problem? It’s boring. If the hero is never really in a situation he can’t easily handle, where is the excitement or drama? In The Crow, the black-wearing white-Kabuki-make-uped hero (seems a swipe from V, actually) just walked up to a bunch of guys he wanted to kill and… killed them. Only in the first and last executions was there even a fight, and those fights were never versus opponents who posed any sort of credible threat. V is absolutely similar in this regard — his first appearance features a fight which he wins without even trying, then he just kills three or four people without having to even fight past security — and his victims are all aged and out of shape and quite plainly not up to taking him on; one is 60 year old woman, for God’s sakes — and his last execution does feature a fight, but, just as in the Crow, you can pound him with automatic gunfire, but he’s not going down until he murders someone.
The hero just never shows any fear, so the audience just never feels any fear on his behalf. Contrast this with Indiana Jones, who frequently makes that “Oh dear God” face to let you know “You know, I think I might just actually die” here. For the audience to feel fear on behalf of the hero, he has to feel it himself. And films suffering from the Black-Costumed Man of Mystery syndrome just never seem to realize that.
I thought this was an interesting reaction, but I disagree. Men love this type of all-in-control (specially emotionally), fearless type “hero.” That’s the exact psychological push-button that the 007 films go for. And men just adore it, they love killing everyone single-handedly, always out-smarting everyone, getting all the sexy women to swoon 24/7 for them and just want nothing else but to jump into the sack with them.
It doesn’t bother men that everything in the above is just male-ego pumping to the max, in such levels of absurdity and lack of reality and logic, that it’s laughable.
I won’t go see V – at least in the theaters – seen the preview, and although it’s supposed to be a more “serious” type film than 007, the manichean structure seems exactly the same.
I haven’t seen all the Bond movies, I don’t think, but from what I remember about them, the only major thing that changed through time was some key traits and behaviors of the main female character.
Seem to remember that in older 007 flicks, the woman was very bimbo-like, sexy, but if she was evil, 007 didn’t fall for it (she could be stupid, but not him). But that was when she didn’t completely change sides because of how enthralled she became about him. Overall, really a “doll” type person, always succumbing one way or another to the male hero. can’t really remember though. In more recent movies, it seems she has acquired more brains and is more of a “partner” type woman, adatping to recent changes about women’s roles in society.
Canelone: “The thing is, this isn’t ego-pumping. It would be if the man was doing these things, but watching some other dude do it doesn’t do a damn thing for a man’s ego. What we like to see is someone kicking ass and succeeding in a way we can’t. Our lives are tough and crappy enough without watching some loser as bad or worse than us stumble around haplessly.
There’s nothing attractive about someone barely able to defeat their enemies, in constant concern for their life or even success. That’s not heroic, that’s like real life and I don’t pay 8+ dollars to watch real life.”
That happens to me too. I haven’t asked other women about how they feel regarding watching a woman character that “kicks a**,” but I certainly like it.
You see, there is something more there too that you guys never experienced. A couple of decades ago, if you examined the roles of women in film and tv, you had no “kick a**” heroines. (I know, I know, I bet you can name exceptions). But the sheer bulk of roles had really lame attitudes and behaviors for women. There’s the fall apart in a crisis type, who breaks down crying until the brave guy comes and does something. there’s the incompetent or not that smart part, that can’t figure out a solution and has to rely on other people, there’s the “I just go shopping and flirting and serve as sex symbol” type, but who didn’t do much either. Can you imagine watching films and tv and seeing one load of stupid messages about women after another? this is what was like watching most of tv in the past.
Specially if you stop to analyze the roles women played in guy hero movies, I mean, they were ridiculuous.
A lot has changed. For example, take Alias. I really liked Alias for lots of reasons (only watched the first two years). JG played a kind of female 007 heroine, very dangerous missions, she’s usually alone or almost alone to get things done, she has all the computer little gadgets, AND she goes unarmed to fight against these armed to the nth power goon headquarters, to exactly do what? KICK a lot of body parts of the bad guys. And the plots are totally double-O-seveny, they are full of illogical non-sense, but it’s fun and it’s cool and it’s exciting because of all the suspense build-up. And it’s really cool that she exactly does things competently, out-smartingly, strongly, and yet doesn’t lose her femininity (one could say, is quite used a sex symbol, but not bimbo-like).
But that’s not all, one thing that I find irritating with Alias is that it oscillates between the fantastic and mission impossible 007 genre to a much more dark and serious genre. Can’t we choose one and stick to it? Because the more serious part of Alias is really cool too, specially character development, and troubled relationships, conflicts, etc. It has content in that respect too, but that just conflicts totally with the fun, superficial 007 wins everything in the end always, and still has an unruffled tuxedo and perfectly combed hair in the end.
From an entry at Dappled Things.
It’s just one of those things that I like, but that I usually don’t stop to think about, it’s just something I’ve always felt but don’t usually shape into a defined text thought.
I like wooden spoons a lot; the shape, the texture, the feel, and I always associate them with good food. Actually I like most anything that’s made out of wood; it has such a nice earthy feeling, specially if it’s not overly treated. The only exception being wooden chairs and benches, which are usually totally back breaking – ugh! (at least without a pillow).
This is so cool! I had never known there were so many different interpretations to the Original Sin story such as these! [Click on the link below to read about more.]
The more modern liberal branches of Judaism, such as Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism, which see no “evil” other than the evil actions of human beings, disagree with traditions that identify the serpent with Satan. Eve’s only transgression was that she disobeyed God’s order. Adam was with her the entire time and at no time stopped her. Therefore, it is incorrect to blame Eve alone. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and had to live ordinary, human lives. In other words, they had to “leave home” and grow up and live as responsible human beings. If they had never eaten from the forbidden tree, they would never have discovered their capacity to act with free will in the world. God doesn’t want human beings who have no choice but to always do what is good and right.
The original sin in Gnosticism
Many Gnostic sects (particularly the Ophites) saw the figure of the serpent as a divine benefactor and liberator of humanity, rather than as Satan, Lucifer, or any other ill-intentioned figure. They held that the world was created by the Demiurge, an imperfect creator who wished to rule it as a tyrant. However, the spirit of Christ interfered by possessing the serpent and telling Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating from this tree allowed Adam and Eve to have free will and thus defy, if need be, their Demiurge creator. Therefore, according to many Gnostics, what Christians call the Fall of Man was really the freeing of humanity’s minds and souls.
[too cool!! I had never heard of this!]
The original sin in Islam
The Qur’an recounts the story of Adam and Eve in a similar way to that of the Bible. However, the blame of disobedience is either put squarely on Adam, or both are blamed for the sin; Eve never convinces Adam to sin. Adam and Eve are forgiven by God after they repent.
The idea that the sin propagates to their offspring is categorically refused by the majority of Sunni and Shia muslims, citing ayahs such as: [6:164] “Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another,” and [2:286] “On no soul doth Allah place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns.” There are minor factions, such as the Qur’an Alone Muslims, who accept a concept of original sin according to which every single human has sinned individually before coming to this earth.
Original sin in Restoration Movement
Most Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement Churches, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and other Congregational Churches of the same origin, reject the notion of original sin, believing only in the sins for which men and women are personally responsible. Adam and Eve did bring sin into the world by introducing disobedience. This spread to further generations in much the same way other ideas spread, thus ensuring an environment that will produce sin in any individual above “The Age of Accountability.” Many Restoration movement churches and individuals, however, do believe that Adam’s sin made us depraved (that is, with a tendency towards sin) without making us guilty of Adam’s sin. Man is predisposed towards sin, but though every person sins, they are not intrinsically forced to sin.
The only other previous explanation I had come across regarding the Catholic/Christian mainstream interpretation of original sin was that when early Christians were battling for supremacy against many of the other local religions, and they started to become more and more powerful, they used specific strategies to consolidate their ideological power and legitimacy: in order to de-legitimize many of the pagan, folk religions, in which women had a more positive (and powerful) part to play, they demonized the character of Eve, blaming her (and all other women) with the original sin. Additionally, they took several pagan rituals and incorporated them, giving them a Christian make-over, in order to win over pagan adepts more easily.