SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the debating-whether-something's-debatable dept.
It looks like anybody can be against academic censorship, as this opinion piece in the Washington Post shows:
Wisconsin's Supreme Court can soon right a flagrant wrong stemming from events set in motion in 2014 at Milwaukee's Marquette University by Cheryl Abbate. Although just a graduate student, she already had a precocious aptitude for academic nastiness.
On Oct. 28, in an undergraduate course she was teaching on ethics, when the subject of same-sex marriage arose, there was no debate, because, a student said, Abbate insisted that there could be no defensible opposition to this. (Marquette is a Jesuit school.) After class, the student told her that he opposed same-sex marriage and her discouraging of debate about it. She replied (he recorded their interaction) that "there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful [...]
[...] McAdams, a tenured professor then in his 41st year at Marquette and a conservative who blogs about the school's news, emailed Abbate seeking her version of the episode. Without responding to him, she immediately forwarded his email to some professors. She has called McAdams "the ringleader" of "extreme white [sic] wing, hateful people," a "moron," "a flaming bigot, sexist and homophobic idiot" and a "creepy homophobic person with bad argumentation skills."
Because there is almost no Wisconsin case law concerning academic freedom that could have guided the circuit court, McAdams is asking the state supreme court to bypass the appeals court and perform its function as the state's "law-developing court." He is also asking the court to be cognizant of the cultural context: Nationwide, colleges and universities "are under pressure" — all of it from within the institutions — "to enact or implement speech codes or otherwise restrict speech in various ways."
[Post-publishing edit: An A/C below helpfully provides the following far more neutral reportage by Inside higher Ed titled Ethics Lesson which explains the situation with more light and less head. Thanks A/C - Ed. (FP)]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Tuesday January 09 2018, @12:43PM (74 children)
It doesn't matter so much if it's an extreme viewpoint, it matters if it's a defensible viewpoint. Especially Jesuits (the "soldiers of Christ") are (in-)famous for how good they are at argument and discussion. So I'd expect the students there to be well-trained in academic debate.
It seems that the student's argument was: "I am opposed to same-sex marriage, because my Catholic religion forbids it".
That is very easy to debate, so the student and his/her co-students would have had a nice debate about it which their ethics teacher unfortunately suppressed. Shame on her.
Counter-argument: if you are opposed to same-sex marriage, you should not be forced or coerced to marry someone of your own sex. But, what if the two homo's who want to marry, are *not* strict Catholics?
Other people may have a different life philosophy, because one of the Human Rights is, Freedom of Religion, and I assume that Wisconsin respects Freedom of Religion.
Counter-attacks to that counter-argument that I can think of are:
(1) fuck Freedom of Religion: everybody else should oppose same-sex marriage, because I do and my religious leaders do (religious fundamentalism). Then their teacher could have supported him/her, and gave them all something from Qutb [wikipedia.org] to read or something.
And I didn't even go to school with the Jesuits :-) (priests of the Sacred Heart, instead)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:35PM (46 children)
However, by definition, as we can debate the merits or otherwise of each and every sub-clause in the above definition, the matter is one for intellectual debate, and should not be silenced /ab initio/, as little miss white wing in the story was wont to enforce.
Of course, the dregs of the bronze and iron age have left us this religious thing called "marriage" too, which the religious think they have a monopoly over, so the matter of whether the purely legal institution of marriage should have been named differently such that the religious types don't get confused is also a matter for debate. (One I agree with, let the religious have their "marriages", I don't require anything sounding any more fancy than a "partnership". Of course, in reality, my partner of 19 years and I "don't need no piece of paper from the city hall Keeping us tied and true". (But we might need one to make residency issues easier after Brexit, but that's a different matter - residency added to the list above...)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:57PM (41 children)
Marriage preceded any of today's governments. No, governments don't get to define marriage - the churches have far more right and authority to do so. And, by "churches", I mean far more than Catholicism. Find a real church that encourages "gay marriage". Even the Greeks didn't go that far. Marriage was between a man and a woman, for the (primary) purpose of procreation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:13PM (4 children)
Governments certainly can and do get to define what marriage is. It is also civil commitment. Historically has paved the way for creating the next generation who will support the current one when it can no longer support itself, plus provide bodies to be ground up in war. Also, were it not a governmental matter you would not have the courts involved in divorces. (Or more appropriately, there wouldn't be specialized courts which deal in divorce but rather it would be considered a civil tort of "who gets what stuff now that it's over" and alimony could be unnecessary as both parties would jointly recognize the need to continue to support themselves individually during the marriage period.) You would not allow civil servants to officiate and/or sign off on the wedding documents. You would not allow for filing jointly on taxes to be different and we'd only have "married filing separately".
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:19PM (2 children)
That's what I've been saying all along. None of that stuff is the government's business. Separations, divorces, and marriages are the province of the church. Gubbermint got involved for the express purpose of eventually creating gay marriage. That was the plan, all along. The IRS was just one of the earliest instruments created to advance the plan.
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:29PM
Who wants this as their .sig?
"The IRS was created for the express purpose of instigating gay marriage." - Runaway1756
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:42PM
Nice Poe. I modded you up because I'm sure this is going to make a few blood vessels burst in peoples' heads who are slower on the uptake than me :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday January 10 2018, @03:32AM
The 2018 tax bill [businessinsider.com] finally changed the brackets so 2x single == married up to $300E3/person, which should significantly benefit now-legal same-sex marriages, particularly dual-income ones. I wonder what the Republicans would think if they got letters of thanks from that demographic.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:22PM (5 children)
Religion has no mandate, it makes and enforces no laws (at least in civilised countries), it's a shared fairy story, or a contradictory set thereof, nothing more.
The thing which decides my taxes, my rights to residency, my inheritance rights, etc., and how they relate to my chosen life-partner bonding, is *the government*. Chosen life-partner bonding is traditionally called "marriage". Therefore governments define "marriage".
We might be in violent disagreement, but your reading comprehension's a bit rusty - reread my third paragraph. It seems you might agree that the government should let the church have a definition of marriage which it can play with at will but which has no legal meaning, and the government should chose its own term for the thing that changes your tax status etc.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:30PM (2 children)
You better hope that no lawyer or judge reads that, or the fatty parts of Phil will be sizzling in a fire.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:38PM
That's precedent *within* the legal system. Precedent from without is *irrelevant*.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:10PM
Precedence is the fact that the government already defines marriage.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:57PM (1 child)
You're from the UK. The person who runs your church also runs your government. She can suspend Parliament, refuse to grant assent to a bill, appoint the Prime Minister, declare war, and much more. You can't even prosecute her. It isn't proper to refer to her as "The thing". Her name is:
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.
Get it right next time.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 10 2018, @08:00AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:39PM
No. Fucking exists "for the (primary) purpose of procreation". Marriage is a man made institution meant to instill a morality around what would otherwise be animal rutting by homo sapiens. If gays want to marry, there's no moral position to prevent it since marriage doesn't control who can fuck and procreate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:35PM (5 children)
This isn't a question of your personal ideology, it's a question of what the word commonly means. Generally, when people say 'marriage', they mean the government institution, they do not mean religious ceremony.
Would you agree that 'marriages' resulting from religious ceremony, but without registration with the state, aren't real marriages? We've had this issue here in the UK where Islamic wedding ceremony is followed, but it's not made official. [bbc.co.uk] This results in people going around saying they're married... but they're not, and it bites them when it comes to hospital visitation rights, 'divorce' proceedings, etc.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:22PM (2 children)
No, when someone thinks you got married, they think you had a wedding, with a priest/pastor and the whole nine yards. The idea that marriage is divorced from any religious connotations, is laughable. While a couple going to the Justice of the Peace and getting it all legal without a ceremony, probably isn't uncommon. A Civil Marriage isn't what one typically thinks of when one thinks "Marriage". Though, one would want to make it legally official, for various reasons you have listed, etc.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:58PM
When someone says We're married, everyone who hears it assumes they're legally married. It's certainly not only ceremony.
In the UK, it's very often a secular affair. We generally assume that Christians will hold their wedding in a church, sure.
Sure, but again there are acid tests we can explore. The fake Muslim marriages I mentioned, really are just fake marriages. If you have the ceremony and no papers, you aren't really married. On the flipside, if you file the papers but don't bother with any ceremony, you are considered to be married. No-one is going to tell you it doesn't count because you never went to church.
It's the government institution of marriage that really matters to people. Ceremony and religion are incidental.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:21PM
It is where I live.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:03PM (1 child)
In Islam, a divorce is pretty simple. "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee." May or may not be followed by the beheading of the ex-wife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:08PM
Per _The Princess Bride_: "If you didn't say it, you didn't do it!"
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:36PM (19 children)
What do you think of "Civil Unions"?
Not a "real" marriage in the eyes of many but grants equal legal right to same sex couples as mixed sex marriages.
Or do you think some people should not get the same legal rights and protections as others due to who/what they are?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @05:56PM (17 children)
I would be perfectly fine with that. I offered that often, in discussions in the past. But, the same SJW's who insist there is no difference between males and females demanded that there be no difference, even in terminology, between gays and straights.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:02PM (14 children)
Count me in. There shouldn't be, for the institution of marriage. (I'm not the sort who denies sex differences, though, for what that's worth.)
'Separate but equal' doesn't work. The institution of marriage has recognition and legitimacy within society. It should be extended to same-sex couples. It doesn't do to invent a new, roughly equivalent institution, with a different name.
You end up with absurd situations where people end up apologising for casually saying "marriage" when they were 'supposed' to say "marriage or civil union", lest they be accused of excluding gay couples. (And yes, exactly this 'scandal' has actually happened. I believe it was here in the UK.)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:05PM (12 children)
There's no scandal unless people give a damn. I don't give a damn who might be offended, so there can't be any real scandal. I certainly won't call a gay couple "married".
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:44PM (11 children)
Eliza and I may just track you down and send you a wedding invite :) You know, just to piss you off. 'cause hey, guess what, asshole? You don't get to define reality. Sure, maybe it won't be a church wedding on account of me being some sort of Deist and her basically an atheist, but hell, we can go to a Unitarian "church" if we really want to.
It bothers you to no end that gays and lesbians can marry, and we're all laughing at your suffering. Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot, doesn't it? Eat'cher liver.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:49AM (10 children)
That isn't an argument, it's gloating. Who modded this Insightful?
It's not my intention to take Runaway's side here, but really now, do better.
What a waste of good letters. People who oppose gay marriage have been saying exactly that for decades! It's no less unhelpful when the same nonsense is spouted by our side now that we're winning.
Trump supporters say the same thing when they gloat about Trump dismantling Obamacare. Empty hostility. No content whatsoever.
Again you sound like a Trumpite. How about communicating some actual arguments and points? All you've said boils down to I support gay marriage and my side is winning so screw you.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 10 2018, @04:28PM (9 children)
That's all he ever had. All I'm doing is giving back the only thing he's ever been able to do. You don't know the guy but trust me, he's not here for reasoned debate...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @05:16PM (8 children)
Oh come on. If I caught you throwing your own shit at a monkey, would you tell me He started it?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 10 2018, @08:36PM (7 children)
If the monkey started it, yes. Odds are good I wouldn't engage in a shit-flinging contest, though; if it were a small enough monkey and I could get to it, I'd just grab it and wring its neck.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @02:35AM (1 child)
You're a pretty small monkey yourself - it might be YOUR neck that was wrung.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:11PM
A six foot woman is small now? I'm taller than most men (which I'm sure annoys the piss out of them). Probably taller than you too, AC.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 11 2018, @09:31AM (4 children)
...right. I think I've made my point.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:09PM (3 children)
You have, but you've made it in the context of the assumption that we are dealing with a sane, rational human being here. We are not. Several days ago he and I had a long back and forth during which he revealed that he revels in being "asocial," looks down on anyone who isn't, and plainly stated that if he doesn't give a damn about something, it doesn't matter, and if he does, ONLY his way of thinking matters. To him. Because see "asocial." Which is closer to solipsism than anything.
We are not interacting with a normal human being here. The guy's a walking mass of complexes, and every now and then he'll slip up and show a little of how fucked up he is. There is no dialogue with a solipsist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:13PM (2 children)
No, I quite explicitly did not make that assumption.
Behaving like an unthinking animal is not defensible, whether or not you are in the presence of animals.
I don't even need to take a position on Runaway here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)
You know, I like most of your posts, and you seem reasonable enough, but you're falling into whataboutism here. Don't assume any two posters are equally sane, knowledgeable, or rational. We have some real headcases on here...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:33PM
Sure, Runaway is prone to spouting utter garbage. I'm not suggesting you're in the same league, I just figure you've got little excuse not to rise above.
When you visit the zoo, you don't fling the monkey poop back, any more than you'd angrily shout at the sky for raining on your day off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:49PM
What if you go one step further: abolish "marriage" from the legal lexicon - only have "civil union."
So gay or straight, you need a "civil union license" from the court, and then frolic off and do whatever ceremony with whoever you want but turn in your damn signed paperwork and enjoy filing your taxes as "civily-unioned filing jointly."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:36PM
Hey, Runway! Everybody knows that same-SJW marriage is not allowed, and even mentioning it is hurtful. Please leave this thread immediately.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday January 10 2018, @12:18AM
Thank you, that was where I thought you were coming from but wanted to be sure.
I've always felt that "marriage" is more of a religious institution, with different religions/cultures having different views of what is and is not a "marriage". Personally I think we should stop calling the legal document a "Marriage Certificate" and just call it what it is, a "Civil Union" where two people have decided to give each other full legal permissions and responsibility over the other persons life and leave the "marriage" to whatever religion they follow.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:13PM
What do you think of "Civil Unions"?
I think when people say thing are "separate but equal" they're usually lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:06PM
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:11PM (1 child)
Assertion without historical citations.
Heterosexual sex is what drives procreation, not marriage. Procreation does not need to be tied to monogamous relationships. Someone needs to burst their idealogical bubble.
Marriage is a social construct, and history shows it is more to do with cementing social contracts between families, clans, or other power structures. Ever heard of arranged marriages? Dowries? Marriages to form alliances by feudal leaders? et.al.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:47PM
He doesn't give a shit. By his own admission he's "asocial" and proud of it, and one of the knock-on effects of that is that, much like our demented Oompa-Loompa in Chief, he trusts his own "expertise" (aaaaaahahahahahaha) above such irrelevant mundanities as truth, history, facts, and logic.
Please understand that we are dealing with basically an angry solipsist here. Because hard solipsism is only one short step away from the kind of self-referential worldview he embraces.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:39PM (3 children)
As long as the government gets to give tax incentives for people who are married the government gets to decide what marriage is. If you want to take the government out of marriage then we need to remove the tax incentives and various other federal benefits to being "married".
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:58PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:27PM (1 child)
Agreed. If you want to get Equal Protection Under the Law OUT of marriage then you need to attack the root and get Law OUT of marriage. The Equal Protection bit isn't optional once Law is involved.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:57PM
In my personal opinion if the government is to mandate any sort of "marriage" it should be a simple "civil union" in all cases or better yet handled like a LLP. If folks want to go ahead and get "married" by their religion of choice that is totally up to them, folks of course could not force/coerce someone to perform a marriage ceremony against their will but with ~300 million people in the US I am sure someone suitable could be found to marry someone under pretty much anything. At this point you could have two people married without a LLP or people married with an LLP and it doesn't matter to anyone but you and your god/whatever.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:01PM (26 children)
The teacher shut it down before debate could happen.
A student came forward and complained to the teacher about this, and after she dismissed said student, the student went to another teacher, based on his tenure a well respected member of the faculty to bring up the issue. Said teacher in doing his due diligence (and it sounds like respecting the desire for free flow of debate/first amendment protections) politely asks said Teacher why she chose to shut down the debate rather than allowing arguments to be made for one or both sides. Instead the original teacher tries to deflect from the issue and make it all out as this older teacher's problem, despite the details as presented indicating he took a polite and diplomatic tact to this inquiry.
I could see that either this newer teacher is strongly religious, or was not really that religious and concerned with her ability to control the flow of discuss if it became too heated. Or that she personally would be offended by the pro/anti debaters.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 09 2018, @06:08PM (25 children)
I can't see any of what you see there. I see an activist working hard to brainwash a class full of students to her own way of thinking. She should be punished. Hanging, then gibbeting would be suitable, IMO.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:02PM (5 children)
No, she shouldn't be killed. She should be fired though, because her mindset is incompatible with the sort of open debate that a university is intended to foster. Period, full stop.
Then there is the side issue of it being a Catholic university, if they weren't suffering through a string of feckless cucks and anti-popes they would have solved this problem with a good old fashioned purge of heretics and blasphemers. Alas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @07:48PM
Evidently, neither jmorris nor Runaway1966 have ever attended college. They are, however, very useful at parroting right-wing hit pieces like this one. The real reason that there are no conservative faculty members on campuses is that a "faculty" is supposed to be "collegiate", and McAdams obviously was not.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 09 2018, @08:49PM (3 children)
The problem with purging heretics and blasphemers, dear J-Mo, is that at some point YOU are the blaspheming heretic. I realize this never did and, indeed, cannot possibly, occur to you, but i'll leave it here for posterity.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:06PM (2 children)
WTF? Are you really this dense? The official State Religion of the United States is Cultural Marxism / Progressivism. I wake up every single day knowing I'm a blaspheming heretic. That is what this is all about, me and mine trying to overthrow your successful coup. To restore reason and learning to the universities, knowing it almost certainly means burning them down and building anew.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:18PM
Come, now, jmorris! The fear that possesses you is obvious to all and sundry! Brainwashing. The ChiComs in NK used to -do this, right? All's it takes if for some freedom loving partiotic American to be exposed to some actual ideas, and poof! Brainwashed! This is why conservatives, and the not so smart-anymore conservatives that still call themselves Republicans, think that Universities are bad for the USA, think that science is just someone's libtard opinion, and that Trump is working for them. Must suck to be so afraid.
(BTW, in the addendum to our Fine Summary, the ed points to another source " explains the situation with more light and less head." I can only expect that jmorris, and Milo, are disappointed there will be "less head". Simple typo, or Freudian Slip? Read Pascal's Provincial Letters Jesuits!)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:34PM
Only someone so completely up his own asshole he could see the cheeseburger his daddy had at the 1968 Memorial Day barbecue could say that. Jesus motocrossing Christ, you don't even know what the fuck half those words fucking *mean!* I bet you even think Marx was a postmodernist.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:51AM (18 children)
You do realise how silly that kind of thing makes you sound, right?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 10 2018, @02:43PM (17 children)
And, do you realized that you sound equally silly for having taken me even half seriously?
But, the woman needs to be punished. We can talk about punishment, but nothing will ever happen, because she has taken a "politically correct" stance. The day will come, when all that political correctness will bite everyone in the ass - IF it doesn't just snap off their heads. It's utterly moronic. It was moronic when the Soviets were practicing it, and it's even more moronic for any American to be practicing it. A special snowflake who cannot tolerate discussion of any given subject should NEVER be put in charge of any type of education, at any level.
Since we can't get that kind of law enacted, hanging and gibbeting will work well enough.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 10 2018, @08:33PM (16 children)
It's a well-known part of the alt-right playbook to fall back on "I was only joking, snowflake!1111one" when someone calls them out on their shit.
It also doesn't fool anyone. "The mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart," as It Is Written (TM). Piss off. "I was only joking" didn't work on the third grade playground and it doesn't work here either.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 10 2018, @11:17PM (15 children)
And it's a well known altylefty tactic to hammer a point into absurdity, snowflake. That shit doesn't fool anyone either. The nagging old hag is a nagging old hag, no matter how you paint the hag.
Related - you know why they call ships "she"? Because it costs so much to keep them in paint and powder. And, people still think that if you put enough lipstick on a sow, you'll have a beauty!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @12:08AM
And they say you cain't make a silk purse out of a Runaway ballsack! My gawd you are a stupid righty, Runny! Why do you keep repeating yourself?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 12 2018, @04:17PM (13 children)
Have you actually had a nervous break down? Here's a hint, since I'm a generous girl: "NO U!!!!11111" is not a valid argument, and neither is ad hom.
Please, please keep this up; I want everyone to see how completely bankrupt and vacuous you are. Just like Trump, you can't fucking resist posting and you've got no filter.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 12 2018, @04:23PM (12 children)
A wise man once said, you can't argue with a sow, no matter how much makeup she is wearing. So, I'm not arguing with you 'Zumi. And, HOW IN HELL did you get that color lipstick? Did you skin a coon and burn his hide to get that?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 12 2018, @04:28PM (11 children)
Ask your daughter. She has questionable taste in cosmetics but she's really, really good with her fingers :) We needed to run the sheets through the hot-wash cycle after that.
(See, I can sling mud too)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 12 2018, @04:43PM (10 children)
The joke is still on you. Runaway only has sons, no daughters. Want me to ask your mom?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 12 2018, @08:48PM (9 children)
Wait, you actually DID reproduce? Oh gods, do I feel sorry for whatever woman had to deal with you. How close a relative is she? And how many fingers do the kids have?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 12 2018, @11:15PM (8 children)
The almost-genius is kinda redundant here. You've used all of that in past posts . . . .
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:55AM (7 children)
Nice misfire. Forgot what thread you were in, or indeed what day it is? Early-onset Alzheimer's, maybe? I can hope, anyway.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 13 2018, @03:59AM (6 children)
You do grow tiresome, little girl.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 13 2018, @04:07AM (5 children)
Cry me a river, build me a bridge, jump off the bridge into the river, and drown, old man :) If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, and tell 'em to line your coffin with asbestos, 'cause you're gonna need it where you're going.
Also...am I a little girl or an old hag? One would think at 32 I'm neither, but you've called me both in the span of one day. Time to break out the Prevagen...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 13 2018, @02:16PM (4 children)
Heat? What heat? What kitchen? You're not cooking anything. Cooking is an art, and there is nothing imaginative happening here. You figure that you can "show me" like you "showed the Buzzard". With you, it's just an endurance contest. You've nothing to say, but you won't shut up. But, you can't "show me" either.
I've got an idea. Heat, you say? You've made the claim that I'm going to roast in hell, or something similar. What evidence do you have that there really IS a hell? The best evidence I have right now, would be you. If I were to go to hell, you and a few other women I've known would surely be there to blather meaningless bullshit at me for eternity.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 13 2018, @11:35PM (3 children)
This shit seriously looks like Trump wrote it. Dodging and ignoring anything you don't or can't answer, rambling over useless bullshit, shifting the burden of proof, thinking an insult is an argument...get yourself to a neurologist and get scanned. You're going senile, Grandpa.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 14 2018, @12:53AM (2 children)
Same old tiresome drek . . .
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday January 14 2018, @01:48AM (1 child)
Come on now, which am I, little girl or old hag? :) Gotta be one or the other at maximum, right? You said both in the space of 24 hours. "Tiresome" isn't an excuse; put up or shut up and stop posting, old man. If you're that tired, get off the fuckin' internet and go to sleep.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 14 2018, @02:39AM
A mental little girl, in an old hag's body. Haven't you ever seen the stupid cartoons depicting the youth inside a worn out body?
But, still, you've grown boring . . . I'll just get back to killing aliens, and making the spaceways safe for women and children and liberals . . .