|
'They'? Who are 'they'?
|
Quote:
|
I think he means the sluts. Maybe.
|
Quote:
Totally Correct. When you are about to pass the bar, after the years of studying and hard work, they take you into a little room near the graduation ceremony and make you drop your trousers. One of them holds a clipboard, the other a magnifying glass, and if they see a dick, you get a tick. |
This still isn't really about the officer in question. Or even about the idea that the word 'slut' is generally more damning and more likely to come from the mouths of women (whether this is true or not I have no idea - most women I know aren't morons)
It's lovely that you've put a caveat in, but you're still generalising horribly. Edit: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? |
If I'm a feminist, the movement's fucked.
What is the basis of whose manifesto? Are you saying that women have a manifesto? Is it online? |
And what is at the basis of this manifesto?
I don't want you thinking I'm picking on you, but I'm really not clear what you're trying to say. If it is the case that you're talking arse, I'm only trying to illustrate that to you. Your sentences are floating about all object-less. |
I heard feminazis eat children - is that true?
|
I like it how when passive-aggressive mascunazis get called out for stuff they post on the internet and they get all vague and defensive. Of course making a point of gender politics needs a manifesto of sort, no matter how flawed it might be. Just like, you know, anything else concerning political protest in history. What exactly is wrong with that? And to equate all women rights protests with a nazi stance on those rights is such a trite cliche by now, I don't even think the more sophisticated fringes of the extreme right go into it anymore.
|
A friend of mine found out the cyst on her womb was her malformed twin she ate while in utero. I suppose feminazis would expect her to make some sort of gay rights scarf out of its teeth.
|
The officer's remarks were what initially sparked off this wave of protest. As I've said 3 or 4 times now, this is the straw that broke the camel's back. This is a metaphor which is used to indicate that the event is not causal but the attributive event which inspires counter-action. To put that in another context: Khaled Sayeed wasn't the first person to be brutalised by the Egyptian police; neither was he the root of the disquiet which led to the revolution. He was (drumlol) the straw that broke the camel's back (this is a simplification of matters, but I'm sure you can do your own reading on the Egyptian situation).
The officer's remarks are merely indicative of a wider problem. I am part of a feminist reading group, yes - but I don't think that means much more than I occasionally have a natter over tea and cakes with some people about some books we've read (it is frightfully genteel, sadly). |
I heard the feminazis joined forces with the fuminazis, and now they gas nondistinctmemberroaches. Which is a filthy slut to type.
|
......
|
Uh... well, I suppose I'd say that one instance of an irreconcilable difference of opinion doesn't undermine the remainder of opinions. I theoretically hate anyone wearing trainers, but I have to swallow my pride and admit them as probable/ likely humans (on a case-by-case basis).
Does a person's faith undermine anything/ everything else they say? Is it a problem with the nuances of my understanding? Have you no room for a radical/ progressive approach to faith? I'm trying not to do 'Derridian Jedi word games' here, by the way. Derrida is only ever a mask for the Lyotard underneath with me. INCIDENTALLY I'm constantly baffled by how many people think of me as Derridian (except, y'know, verbose and shit) |
The SLUT manifesto : The Society for Lifting Up Tops.
|
Quote:
I don't run in my fancy shoes, or combat boots because I'm not a militant, like you, dyke lover. |
Right. Well. When you phrase it those absolutist, dismissive terms, it doesn't give me any space to explain in nuanced terms. Which give the distinct impression that you have no interest in my explaining it.
I say 'absolutist' on the assumption that you think fictions and falsehood are absolutely negative things. I could strongly contest that they are 'fictions', but then we're stuck in that cycle of bad dialectics, which just goes around and around getting no where. I'm happy to explain, but it just seems futile seeing as you have such a violent opposition to it all. Have you read Zizeks Christian books, by the way? |
Right.
First of all, creationism is utter bullshit - but it's a particular sort of bullshit. Genesis as a allegorical myth? Brilliant. Creationism as a far-right 'Christian' movement, protecting other anti-progressive epistemologies and badly covering a suspicion about anything purporting to expand human understanding? Bullshit. It's interesting you mention Freud - you could relate that to my general take on things in as far as there's a definite sense, in some circles, that psychoanalysis is 'the' true empirical framework for society, attenuating the truth of the human condition. It might well be. But I'm cautious about any epistemology which purports to explain the world 'as it really is'. I tend to treat it as an Enlightenment lie that any single epistemology can explain all the others, can take and demand sovereignty. Which is, amusingly, where Hegel relates to Christianity the imperial monster. Fundamentally, I can and do believe some of 'that shit', in the same way that you seem to think that a fantastical narrative is unbelievable. I'm not putting you in the box marked 'Enlightenment activist', but... well, I suppose I appeal to a form of postmodernist 'truth', not the chimerical Baudriallardian one, but the atomic truths inherited from Feyerabend (who, incidentally, absolutely hate Derrida). Does Christianity represent epistemic anarchy to many other people? Probably not, but it works fine for me, though I've yet to round off all the rough edges (an-arche, as in without structure, tabula rasa and the Holy Spirit) I don't really care to proselytise, but I think it's a very worrying form of progressive thought which would seek to elide other counterpart ideologies and epistemics. Would I defend parapsychology, divination, voodoo, horseracing, Morris Dancing (etc)? Yes, with reservations. Always with reservations. Belief doesn't fall away in the face of alterior narratives, regardless of how those narratives colonise epistemology. I'm unfair on Hegel, always, because it's not his fault, but I think it's important that we don't let anything colonise again, even if that seems like a contradictory position from someone who's at the heart of the worst empire the world has ever seen (that doesn't make me an apologist, yet). Any of this make sense? Writing in a bit of a rush. |
And we're back at square one again.
You ask me to answer the questions. I answer the questions. You tell me I'm not answering the questions. I haven't got a clear position because not having a clear position is important. I don't care that they're 'fictions'. I happen to think fictions are important. I happen to think that a fantastical approach to life is not only desirable but essential to every epistemology. Call them preferential fantasies, if you like. When you say 'just answer the questions' I immediately think you want me to reduce my answer to your terms of engagement, which would ineluctably draw me to agree with you, regardless of the fact I don't. Why don't you ask better questions? |
I said 'yes to some of it, with reservations'. I couldn't give you a precise taxonomy of which aspects I believe in with greater or less veracity because, frankly, ecclesiology is a sprawling wreck of mindwrong. Simply, I believe in most of the fundamental tenets of Roman Catholic faith. This includes maintaining that the Genesis myth is allegorical (as per Nostra Aetate/ VII), that transubstantiation is true (per Nicene Creed, I think), 'an afterlife' (which is a massive fuckcannon of Theological debate, hence a vague demurring), Jesus' miracles as per the canonical gospels and other bits and bobs. At base, most of this is pretty simple things, but my qualifications to those outside of faith systems needs quite a bit of legwork (or pomo bollocks, as you might have it) to get past the invidious tropes of post-Enlightenment 'secular' (iffy term) colonisation of logos. If I were having this conversation with Gail, it'd be over pretty sharpish - 'hey, Jesus is pretty awesome, right?' 'yeah he is. High five?' 'High five!' With suchfriends, it's a different thing again, because he's a lot closer to the sort of properly theological dialogue that I'm on about, though he has a massively different approach to me.
Where is suchfriends, he usually like this sort of thing... |
Quote:
Exactly my earlier point. You can't countenance that someone could believe this, you absolutely dismiss it, and it's not possible for someone with such a belief to impinge upon your belief that it's absolute bullshit. You believe the human body, consciousness, are nothing more than material effects, that's fine. You don't have to be reasonable and respect people's beliefs and all that - that's a pretty boring line to take anyway - but you keep asking 'but why do you believe this bullshit?' - some people do believe 'this bullshit', and I'm one of them. It's no biggy, really, I just don't know why you get yourself wound up about it. |
Right. So are you interested in the weary old questions about ontology, metaphysics, presence/ absence, epistemology, logic... y'know, questions about the nature of reality. You seem very sure of what reality is. Which is nice. What is it, to you, please?
|
it's actually spreading, there were slut walks in ottawa and london (ontario) today...there's a facebook event page under slutwalk toronto or somehting...
|
Quote:
This isn't avoidance. You don't believe in God - fine. You believe in [a] reality - fine. But you're refusing to articulate your understanding of ontology, metaphysics. Do you have to? No. Except you've aggressively asked me to articulate mine, and now refusing to answer the same questions back. You don't have to have an answer but you're assuming a hostile approach to my admittedly ill-defined answer to the same questions about the nature of existence. You say absence, but what absence? A total absence? Social Darwinism? Buddhism? Nihilism? Sadism? You have no 'personal' reality - of course. Because you believe in a fundamental reality which is apprehendible by everyone, one which is self-evident - and in its self-evidence, it refutes articulation. So anyone who tries to apprehend it, anyone who acts within language, is only acting within language. Postmodernism 101. I'm not saying you can't prove things. I'm saying something far more absurd, to your view, than that - I'm saying that the very nature of proof is fucked. You take God away from my view and I'm an absolute nihilist. You're just angry. |
I hear that Mary Magdalene was a hardcore slut and sometimes, even her ankles could be seen!
|
it's actually spreading, there were slut walks in ottawa and london (ontario) today...there's a facebook event page under slutwalk toronto or somehting...
If I could make one comment before I exit this thread. I do believe I have that right since I flamed up this thread way back. I just wish their was more understanding. |
Quote:
I heard afterward, he wept. |
|
'' i don't "believe" in "a reality". reality is something which cannot be affected by belief. it has no direct relation to belief.''
Nick, what does this mean? |
Yeah, but our thoughts are the magic that affects any line of thought. And they indeed affect reality with dedication. Do you need me to show you examples of that?
|
I GOT ALL THE BITCHES ON MY DICK
a million fucking sluts guzzling my nut I THINK I'M BASED CTHULHU |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I completely and totally disagree as I have manifested such within my own life. as soon as you get over the impotence of your own thoughts, you yourself may find personal freedom from your inner torments. don't make me get SRS. |
sounds like a good read.
my mention of torment is in relation to your self-professed monumental depression, brodudeski. me? my life is magical. my mind made it so; my mind, and voodoo. |
Quote:
It might be worth reading this. http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../mind_decision It looks like the study you're referencing has been backed up by this newer study, but it looks like you're misplacing its significance. Sure, brain activity occurs long before you become aware of the decision (7 seconds according to this article), but it has only been tested using simple decisions. This study was conducted where a person had to push a button using their left hand or the right hand and scientists were able to predict which hand the person was going to use. The scientists themselves even say that, while this is fascinating, there is no reason to throw out the idea of free will all together based on this evidence. I'm not particularly uncomfortable with the idea that there is no free will. I study the social sciences and there are authors who take similar stances without relying on brain studies to prove their point (Bourdieu and his Habitus, for example). At the same time, I think it's wise to consider your sources before constructing an all exclusive ideology. |
It's the end of an era.
|
Quote:
:( |
Those aren't real sluts. I don't see any drunken chicks with low self esteem/daddy issues confusing cock with love.
They should move the parade to Cancún. |
Quote:
|
Was any of the females here on the slut march? I'd imagine satan was.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth
