|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Aug 31, 2019 13:37:40 GMT -8
The link will take the reading to a short piece about "The Church of Satan."
I ask if this information surprises anyone? Next they will open a Sodom and Gomorrah theme park. They shouldn't look back as they leave it.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Aug 31, 2019 14:23:14 GMT -8
Satanist rituals tend to involve sexual perversion, so it would be understandable that many LBQTXYZ alphabet soupers would find it congenial. The anti-Catholicism would suit them as well. One wonders if Satanists would care that the desecration of the Host theoretically abuses Jesus Christ when they don't believe in his divinity, much less in transubstantiation. (Jews were accused of similar abuses in medieval times by people who would have been hard pressed to explain why Jews would care about it. Satanists do it for the sake of their hatred of the Church -- and not because of the sexual abuses. They probably approve of those priests.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 8, 2019 11:16:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 8, 2019 11:39:59 GMT -8
This sort of shoot-the-messager attitude applies to more than homosexuality and sexual dysphoria. You will recall that until the Tories came in, the "South Asian" (i.e., Muslim) rape gangs of Rotherham and other English cities were in essence protected by politically correct authorities. The New Years mass rapes in Germany, Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere in Europe a few years back were similarly kept hidden.
Leftists have chosen to ally themselves with Muslim invaders despite the miserable status of women and homosexuals in Muslim states. The only way to keep this folly from costing them a lot of votes (at least in America, where there are far more women and probably more homosexuals than there are Muslims) is to keep the inconvenient and unpleasant truths about Islam sexual attitudes hidden.
There have been a few libertinists who knew better, such as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. He opposed the Muslim invasion of Europe because he supported the sexual libertinism, which would never survive the Islamization of Europe.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 22, 2019 7:41:21 GMT -8
This has now become an old story, but the gold can be found in the comments section: Transgender Cyclist Rachel McKinnon Keeps Smashing Women’s Records There’s also a mini discussion about girls (real girls) playing in boys’ sports. — — That part above that I bolded I thought was a brilliant insight. — — In reply to a comment where someone noted: “Men are bigger, stronger, larger lung capacity, quicker and physiology just better at athletics (most athletics)” a guy wrote: |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 7:49:31 GMT -8
Rachel MacKinnon considers anyone who points out that he has an inherent advantage by virtue of being male to be "losers". Of course, if he raced against men he would be too -- his performance wouldn't have qualified as a man. It's a symbol of everything that's wrong in the societal surrender to sexual dysphoria.
But I can certainly understand why a lot of men see this as femocrat chickens coming home to roost. This would especially be true of those who have been hurt by this, and see MacKinnon as revenge for them. Who knows, that might even have something to do with his motivation.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 22, 2019 8:02:56 GMT -8
I came across a story today that a court in Texas, Austin?, ruled that a 7 year old must be subjected to trans treatment over the objections of his father. The boy will have his name changed, and be required to take drugs designed to retard his puberty. In any state this is a gross insult to parental rights and child abuse. What happens in 11 years when the boy/girl decides he is male and does not have the ability to father children, the body strength to join the military or just overdoses on drugs. Will the mother, who is pushing this perversion be held accountable? Don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 22, 2019 8:17:07 GMT -8
In reply to a comment where someone noted: “Men are bigger, stronger, larger lung capacity, quicker and physiology just better at athletics (most athletics)” a guy wrote: That is the reality, however, the fantasy is any woman can do anything a man can do. Yes, there are a few woman who can compete with men, but they are a very small minority. There are women who can run as fast as a man, jump as high, carry a 80 pound load as far and be skilled warriors. But, there is no man who can conceive a child, provide nourishment from their own bodies for a child. There are jobs women can do as well as a man, but by in large, those jobs are administrative in nature and do not require physical ability. A woman can be a skilled architect but she can not build the building. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 22, 2019 8:56:13 GMT -8
It’s also insane, mean, and vicious. This is clearly child abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 9:02:38 GMT -8
I read about this on Hot Air, and the article ended with a hope that the inevitable appeal reaches a sane appeals court. This is child abuse, pure and simple. If the boy is successfully castrated, there's a good chance that he will regret this, say, in a decade. But who will care by then? Perhaps not even the mother, if she's as ideologically committed as events would seem to indicate. Perhaps we need King Solomon to judge the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 22, 2019 9:23:05 GMT -8
A Vietnam vet, I believe he was a Captain, also told me that females cannot keep up with the extremely stressful program which all must go through in Basic Training or Officer's Candidate School. Females simply cannot recover as quickly as males as they lack the necessary amount of testosterone which apparently promotes healing.
They are not only hurting their kids' chances of being functioning adults, they are promoting mental illness.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 22, 2019 9:39:58 GMT -8
I just saw this happened in a Dallas court. Apparently, the child was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. I have long believed that nature has a reason for not letting some couples conceive.
That a jury would make such a finding is further support for Lee Kwan Yew's (the first PM of Singapore) decision to do away with "trial by jury" as juries were too prone to being played. I am not sure that trials by judges are much better, but there is no doubt that today's juries are pretty sorry. I have been called for jury duty several times, and did not want to be chosen as I am self-employed. A government remuneration of $6-8 a day would not make up for my loss or potential loss of income.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 10:07:08 GMT -8
I don't know how good the records of judges vs. juries is, but certainly there are some spectacular jury failures, such as the infamous Melendez brothers case that received a lot of mockery a quarter century ago. MAD Magazine even did a parody of California justice over that one. Apparently some jurors actually sympathized with them because they were orphans -- due to their having murdered their parents. You may recall that this is a standard example of chutzpah -- murdering your parents and asking for sympathy as an orphan. Apparently they didn't have to ask in this case.
Another spectacular example involves the conviction of William Herbert Wallace for murdering his wife Julia back around 1930 in Liverpool. It's a fascinating case in many ways, including his search (as a salesman answering a request that was undoubtedly a fake to get him out of the way) for Menlove Gardens East. (There was Menlove Gardens West and North and South, but not East, but he spent quite some time looking for it -- and finally came home to an abattoir.) The jury ultimately convicted him, a decision so bad that the British Supreme Court, headed by a strong supporter of the jury system, overturned it on the grounds, in essence, that the jury made the wrong decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 10:12:49 GMT -8
This is what has concerned many people about putting women into combat roles. Few women are able to handle them as well as men need to be able to. But the sort of people who want women in combat won't be satisfied with just a few, so they have to jigger the standards to get a decent number of women. And if this results in problems down the road, it's no skin off the noses of those writing these standards. They won't be commanding the compromised units, and feel that any problems will be minor in the great scheme of things. It's very convenient to be only concerned with large collectives, not individuals.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 22, 2019 11:24:44 GMT -8
How droll. Mr. Kung. How droll. That is the comment of the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 22, 2019 11:44:57 GMT -8
In our technological age large parts of war fighting is done by push button and a woman is just as capable of doing that as a man, even flying aircraft in some instances. However, the necessity for troops in the field, holding territory, and attacking the enemy will never be a place for the average woman and many men.
Back in the 70s Israel made a big show of women soldiers and in the 73 war there were many women who, out of necessity, were in combat. However, over the last 40 years the role of women in combat positions has morphed into reserve units and administrative positions. And some of the best pilots in the IAF on the front line are women. That doesn't mean that these women can not handle and use the weapons issued, but they will only be called to combat when the situation is necessary.
Much has been made of Kurdish forces women in combat, but as a combat unit they are less effective than their male counterparts. The Kurds seem to take a more realistic view of those who can, do and those who can't support those who can.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 11:49:47 GMT -8
The Soviets also made much of women in combat roles, mainly as pilots (though not major combat aircraft) and occasionally as snipers. There have always been scattered female warriors, often pretending to be men. The Sarmatians had young women warriors who may have been the inspiration for the Greek legends of the Amazons.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 22, 2019 11:49:57 GMT -8
But the sort of people who want women in combat won't be satisfied with just a few, so they have to jigger the standards to get a decent number of women. The real goal is to eliminate the military entirely by turning it into a social program where no one's feelings are hurt or offended. |
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 22, 2019 11:52:12 GMT -8
The most effective women's unit would be the PMS brigade, but that is only a few days a month and synchronizing cycles is a bitch.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 22, 2019 11:59:24 GMT -8
Much truth to that. My big objection to the social justice changes of the Obama Gang DOD was that these changes were based on pleasing identity politicians rather than on military efficiency. It would appear that eliminating the ban on open homosexuals has caused no harm, though it's also true that the synoptic media would never report any problems. But the problem with homosexuals had to do with sexual privacy issues, not on basic capabilities.
Women were a different matter. There are so many problems. Some men and some women will always be unavailable for duty due to sickness or injury. The men may well be a bit likelier to be absent -- except for all the pregnant women. The inability of most women to match the physical abilities of most men is also a big problem, both because it leaves combat units weaker and because of morale issues.
Even as pilots, women may have problems in extreme G-force situations. This probably is only a concern for fighter pilots. Of course, the politically correct won't care even then. Failures might get women killed, but that doesn't matter either. The activists don't care if the military fail to do their jobs because they don't think they should be fighting anyway. And if we lose, so what? Surely the situation can never get bad enough to put them at risk, which is all that matters to leftists.
|
|
