Thursday, April 17, 2008
Is it wrong to mock the catastrophically stupid?
PSA, who is a far better person than I could ever be, decides to engage SHE of the ALL-CAPS on her very own blog. You’ll notice from the thread that PSA’s comments are polite, well-written, precise and to-the-point. Not a bit of snark or swearing to be found. Isn’t he wonderful?
And what does he get for his troubles from the Patron Saint of Abortion Porn? Preaching, doublespeak, blatant dishonesty and accusations of “sharing common cause with the likes of Stalin, Pol Pol [sic], Che Guevara”. Well. That’s not very Christian.
But wait kids, our gal SUZIE isn’t done yet ... she also compares the pro-choice movement to White Supremacists and Slavers. Let’s make a note of this, shall we? On April 16, 2008 at 10:35pm EST, SUZANNE, who was always next door to irrelevant, officially jumped the shark.
So to answer my own question — no, it’s not wrong to mock the catastrophically stupid. Not when they’re also pathologically dishonest shriek harpies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Did she neatly sidestep calling PSA a Nazi, thereby avoiding Godwin? It sounds like she put out a lot of bait to get PSA to Godwin the "discussion".
Funny, it seems to me that she and her friends are the ones in bed with Nazis these days.
But wait, isn't a great deal of the reasoning behind anti-choicer's stand is that "we" aren't having enough babies and will be eclipsed by a demographic winter? How could "we" then allow abortion?
"We", of course, refers to white folks, preferably white Christian folks. Now, who is in league with White Supremacists and slavers again? Who is sharing a common cause with the likes Stalin and Che, who thought the individual must succomb to the "greater good" even to the point of giving up their own bodily control? Who ran those residential schools where native kids were flogged to death, electrocuted and abused, then buried in unmarked mass graves around Canada, not unlike Pol Pot and S37?
Not the pro-choice side...
An Acorn is not an organism?
Organism:
An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
Lets see, an Acorn the seed of an Oak tree.
It grows
It Metabolizing Nutrients from it's seed, combined with water to form a a sprout
It is multicellular and therefore has all of the processes that are associated with cells, cell reproduction and respiration.
So it's definitely an organism. I'm glad this prat isn't a biology teacher.
The thing that it isn't is this: An Oak Tree.
it is a potential oak tree just like a fetus is a potential person.
What the hell's going on over there!? Pol Pot? She's losing it...
I wonder if these people also believe that a lump of bituminous coal is worth $20,000 because it'll be a diamond *someday*.
Oh boy... the scams that could be perpetrated...
People like her represent a fraction of reality. %80 of people disagree with that cu*nt, even in the US where it is %70, and Europe is %85.
Of course, the point is not that, but it is a solace that so many would tell her to STFU.
Maybe she and her 'cause' think they're getting traction in Ottawa now that there are TWO private Conservative members' bills contaminating Parliament on the subject of abortion and the bill that has to do with 'morality' censorship over Canadian culture. Somebody is dog whistling like crazy to the constituents.
I'm waiting for them to jump all over the art major who's been reported to have made an art installation of her own reproductive fluids, apparently gaining the materiel by deliberately inducing in herself multiple 'just for art' early term miscarriages.
I mean, the project neatly combines all the bills' efforts in one spot doesn't it?
Post a Comment