Lock up men who pay for sex, says Harriet Harman
While I dislike the sex industry, because it tends to dehumanize both men and women, this Harriet Harman woman is just spouting feminist nonsense.
It’s the same old female aggression over and over. Shame men for their sexuality. Moral violence. A travesty of what morality should be.
Get it through your thick skull Harriet: you do *not* have the right to judge other people’s sexuality. In the same way that you do not have the right to judge other people’s religion.
If you really want to help people (both men and women) with the sexual aspect of their lives, you should respect their freedom, not take it away. And give them the skills to cope with that freedom. Which in the case of many prostitutes, would have been learned in an intact family.
Why is it intact families are dying out? Why is it women like you think you’re some kind of mommy to us all?
As an agnostic I’m not quick to quote the Bible, but in this case: Matthew 7:3.
December 18th, 2006
|
feminism |
no comments
And now for something completely different:
Mavo-humor: Een fiets op het dak gooien
Havo-humor: Dreigen een fiets op het dak te gooien
Vwo-humor: Berekenen hoe een fiets het best op een dak gegooid kan worden.
Vbo-humor: Een fiets op het dak gooien en de bezitter ook.
Gymnasium-humor: kijken welke valversnelling een fiets heeft wanneer hij op het dak gegooid wordt.
F-side humor: Het dak op een fiets gooien.
Kleuterhumor: Een driewieler op het dak gooien.
Read more…
December 10th, 2006
|
humour |
no comments
Spanish town to introduce gendered traffic signs
Although unimportant at first sight, this is misandry. There’s a lot going on beneath the surface:
“You see this stick figure as being explicitly male, exuding its maleness. Majority is power and men cannot be trusted with power, so this is a threat to women. The only solution is equality. Feminists define equality. Now be a good boy and comply.”
This is all done so people are desensitized with respect to nonsensical solutions to nonexistent problems. You can never have enough snake oil to combat the mindrays of those evil space patriarchs.
A bonus thrown in for free is that people are taught that male and female are the only two relevant classes, and that there is a malevolent schism between them.
Wait, there’s even more to be learnt: sexism (sin) is everywhere, and feminism (religion) is the answer. Repent, sinner!
Don’t you just love your thinking being controlled like that?
December 5th, 2006
|
feminism |
no comments
I sometimes hear that with the release of Windows Vista, Windows is more or less a finished product.
That would be so nice.
However, if this should be the case, Microsoft would lose a steady source of revenue. I would expect a company so focussed on profit as Microsoft to see this as something of a problem. I would expect them to find a solution, probably in the form of software rental instead of the current perpetual license model. Although Microsoft is clearly moving in that direction, it is not there yet.
Conclusion: Windows is not finished. In a few years time we’ll start to hear about the next version, that solves all the problems of that shoddy, obsolete, unsafe version of Windows called Vista. Now that will be the final version. Really.
Business as usual.
December 5th, 2006
|
computers |
no comments
A recent piece of research told us that a quarter of the Dutch population supposedly has sexual problems. One of the points was that male sexual violence was more prevalent in higher educated couples. The researchers speculated about a sense of sexual entitlement among higher educated men.
I beg to differ. I think it more likely that higher educated men also tend to marry higher educated women. I strongly suspect a correlation between the educational level of a woman and feminist tendencies (academia especially is a hotbed of feminism). Could it be possible that the more feminist a woman is, the more she sees normal male sexual assertiveness as aggression, as per feminist theory? And is seeing your partner’s normal sexuality as inherently flawed not itself a form of aggression? Who is damaging who?
I think Noer was right. Feminism sucks.
December 4th, 2006
|
feminism |
no comments
An often used argument against the existence of God is the unlikelihood of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Wikipedia describes this creature as:
- An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, including a mountain, trees and a midget.
- All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM tests Pastafarians’ faith by making things look older than they are (q.v. Omphalos).
- The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses two points. “A) It has beer volcanos as far as the eye can see & B) It has a stripper factory.”
This argument has always troubled me. I just found out why: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an invention of the human mind, God could possibly be not. In the same way a chimp could never conceive of a symphony, or appreciate it, the human mind could never come up with something like God. God (if he/she/it exists) is in a different domain. The probability distributions between the earthly and heavenly domains need not be similar. We know that an earthly beast with acid for blood is most unlikely. We cannot be so certain about an alien one.
Simply put: God is transcendent, the Easter Bunny is not.
December 4th, 2006
|
religion |
no comments