Iran said today that an Iranian-American journalist whose family have not heard from for three weeks was arrested for engaging in “illegal” activities because she continued to work after the Government revoked her press credentials.
Roxana Saberi, 31, who has reported from Tehran for the BBC and other news organisations, called her father in the United States on February 10, saying that she had been arrested for buying a bottle of wine.
"She called from an unknown place and said she’s been kept in detention,” Mr Saberi said from Fargo, North Dakota, where her family lives.
“She said that she had bought a bottle of wine and the person that sold it had reported it and then they came and arrested her,” he said, adding that the wine purchase was just an excuse to arrest her
Ms Saberi said that she had already been held for ten days, and called back moments later to say that she would be released in two more days. Neither her family in the US nor her friends in Tehran have heard from her since. Mr Saberi said that he was going public with the information because of fears for his daughter’s safety.
RENEGADE EYE
268 comments:
1 – 200 of 268 Newer› Newest»A former Miss North Dakota...
Sorry I just have not had the time to see Maryam Namazie, even though she is in my neck of the woods.
The Grapes of Wrath ? Am I the first to coin the phrase
Winegate?
ren - i'm glad to see you and freedomnow keeping this flame lit. good job.
Something Left and Right can agree on. Free Roxana!
Maybe Ren remembers what the Iranian Mullahs did to their Leftwing comrades after the Revolution in 1979.
Totalitarian Theocrats have no desire to share power with secularists or atheists. The summary executions of the Revolution are a testament to their oppressive resolve.
Saberi is a brave young woman for sticking it out for 6 years in that fascist country. She is obviously motivated by strong moral convictions and a love for her country.
Such bravery is the mark of greatness. If she survives Evin Prison I look forward to seeing what becomes of her life.
Libertad para ROXANA
One problem with supporting prisoners in Iran, is that every week I could post on the subject. I get emails about political prisoners somewhere, all the time. There are many who don't have a network like Roxana's.
Daniel H-G: I didn't know that she was Miss North Dakota. I bet Graeme knew that.
Larry G: I always wanted to meet Maryam.
Tony: Winegate is brilliant.
Nanc: Most of the defense work I support, is of unionists. Trade unions are officially illegal in Iran, but they have them anyways.
Freedom Now: Thank you for visiting.
Interesting that the Communist Party supported the Shah, until it was clear he was done. The movement that initially protested the Shah, was almost spontaneous.
The CIA, the Stalinist Communist Party and some of the Shah's supporters, brought the mullahs into the picture. The rank and file protesters were more radical than the leadership hoisted on them. The mullahs were a safe bet to defend private property.
Most of the population in Iran is young, without memories of 1979. They know that they are missing something on the internet.
Fascist is technically an incorrect term for Iran. Many use that word emotionally, rather than with a solid analysis of what is fascism. Fascism is different than an authoritarian government or even a military dictatorship.
FJ: Unfortunately some on the left, don't oppose the mullahs. That is not the left at this blog.
Tere: I agree!
I merely wished to point out the common ground that we have. While my idealism has been tempered with the experience of age, I am still disposed to calculated acts of friendship with my political adversaries... Especially when the enemy of my enemy is nowhere near as vile as an enemy like the Iranian Mullahs.
May the Iranian people be free of their oppressive rule without bloodshed. Knowing the nature of these totalitarians, I realize that would be difficult. But at least I can dream and express that desire so that others can feel more confident to share the dream.
On British tv a week ot 2 ago they had a documentary about the Role of Iran in the Rushdie/Satanic Verses affair.
Leaders in Iran were far from united in how they should react to Rushdie.
This reminds me a little of that.
Iran (like anywhere else) is full of divisions & internal power struggles.No doubt it suits the "Hawks" in Iran to trip up Obamas efforts to reach out to Iran.And ,no doubts, many "Hawks" in The West are secretly pleased at the position Ms Saberi finds herself in...
perhaps this too is a sign of tensions within Iran at the moment?
Being a Pakistani, and a son of Shia parents, let me tell you that as far as Pakistan's Shia community is concerned it is totally in favour of the theocratic rule in Iran. This is really sad.
As a Western "Hawk" I can assure you Tony that what I feel is anger at Saberi's imprisonment, not joy.
I am no more pleased at Saberi's ill fortune than union activists were happy about the incarceration of Eugene Debs.
My wish is that Saberi would be free to report as a journalist about the plight of women in Iran and the lack of freedom afforded to all Iranians. Furthermore, I greatly admire her courage and wish her happiness. She deserves the dignity to freely communicate with her family, especially during Nowruz.
Your ad hominem attacks are all too common these dayz.
Senator Byron Dorgan has been very active on her behalf.
Ed Schultz's radio program has been giving daily updates on her imprisonment from the moment her father learned of her arrest.
She wasn't a Miss North Dakota, however, but a runner-up.
Her incarceration just stinks of anti-woman attitude. How dare she be an active working journalist, a single woman answerable to no man, and -- buy a bottle of wine! Her condition must have driven the mullahs mad. So they are gonna teach her, you bet.
Love, C.
I hope the campaign is successful. With so many activits and journalists (and bloggers too) being incarcerated I would like to think that some of our fellow leftists (yes I know I am nearer the centre!) would stop getting lauding Iran because of its anti-US stance... or perhaps they are too blinkered for that.
Who Knows?We Are All 2nd guessing here...........Maybe her arrest has less to do with wine & woman.& more to do with her being a journalist & having duel-nationality.You pays your money + you take your choice.
I still think its a bit of a coincidence that this should blow up just as Obama is holding out the hand of friendship to Iran.
It is not so much her imprisonment that bothers me but the total black-out of information about her condition. Her imprisonment may be legitimate or it may not BUT NO ONE KNOWS..that is the problem.
When any state sanctions this kind of secrecy in the matter of an arrest and imprisonment, each one of us must scream at the top of our lungs at the injustice of it. This lack of judicial transparency is itself criminal in nature and at the least should be condemned by every freedom loving individual anywhere in the world. Where is the Red Crescent Society?
Oh, dear, the imbecile Freedomnow has ventured on the scene.
This hypocritical ex-liberal is one of the most Far Right bloggers in the Western Hemisphere and loves to crap on about "freedom" and "liberty" as long as those concepts apply to the most Holy and Wholesome of Peoples, the Americans.
Supported the Iraq war with a vengeance. Still does, I'm guessing.
Although self-avowed atheist and not a gay-basher, he's effectively surrounded by homophobes and religious nutters because he can use three syllable words whereas 'teyh caanot'. In the name of pluralism...
Shits long and boring tracts because he loves his own writing "style" so much.
Obama basher par excellence...
Loves to come across as 'civic' by deploying a soft semi-polished tone.
In short, a pedantic Far Right Fart.
Where he goes, Nancompoop can't be far behind...
Thats interesting, Tony. Perhaps this was a coincidence.
...Or perhaps since 1979 the current Iranian government might be an oppressive regime that has too many political prisoners who have been jailed in order to stifle their freedom of speech.
Is it a coincidence that this has been going on for about 30 years?
And just ignore Gert, his ignorance and nastiness is his comfort. Such cries for help deserve pity...
RUNVS Gert?
Gert; I think attacking Freedom Now personally is inappropriate since he didn't attack personally.
Nanc once defended me against a personal attack from Beakerkin.
When I started this blog, I was really pro-Hitchens. Now I find him trite and self serving.
Freedom Now: I'm not of the left, only the Trotskyist movement. Some on the left are Stalinist, Democrats etc. The left and right are like drunks, and I want to be the voice of temperance.
Tony: My instincts say you are right. I believe it's a political attack.
RedKazim: Revolution in Iran would shake Pakistan. My comrades believe the most important places are Iran and Egypt. Do you know Lal Khan?
Roman: She is too well known internationally to be hurt. Iran is more pragmatic than its given credit for.
Foxessa: I agree. I believe you'd really like my blog team member Maryam Namazie.
FJ: I don't understand. Better that way.
This is certainly one of those issues that can and should unite all parts of the political spectrum
I'm with Gert, again, he's spotted that a right-wing troll lord has arrived here, to join the other right-wing trolls we are inundated with and is flagging that up.
Gert has it down pat.
Renegade Eye: I dislike labels... every political issue has more then 1 angle. One needs to really understand all aspects before making an informed decision on any thing. I find, sometimes we humans get stuck with small details that we tend to forget or bypass the big picture. I also find myself agreeing with a person on one issue and disagreeing with the same person on another. If you think about it, politics is another form of "gossip".... who did what, who said what, who wrote what etc... So for my sake, I will stay away from labeling myself or others.. I will simply keep to the commentators points.... it's more fun that way...
Why did I say all this.... I don't know... maybe because I like your blog and like to comment every once in a while without worrying about being on the left, right or the center... I hope I make sense.... it not, just ignore me! :)
correction: I meant "if not"... not..."it not".... sorry!
Ren,
We may get into bitter arguments in the future, but there will always be some common ground.
For us that is a sacred place in which partisan politics has no right to rear its ugly head.
Thank you for being a good host and supporting a worthy cause.
Ren:
"Gert; I think attacking Freedom Now personally is inappropriate since he didn't attack personally."
Oh, fair point. But I'm not all ad hominem about FN. The guy's a windbag, all Conservative Talking Points and no substance. A Bush poodle... Oooooh, Obama winning, that must have HURT like hell.
He once endorsed (perhaps still?) the hilarious Moonbattery.com. Funny that: they declared once that (paraphrasing from memory - but I have the exact words on my blog somewhere): 'Jews and Hispanics made McCain lose. Jews and Hispanics, they're all the same. Fuck'em!'
Considering FN is Puerto Rican, that endorsement of his sounds a little, shall we say... partisan?
MB are also unabated, unashamed homo-bashers (very bon ton in US Conservative circles - a genuine cesspit of homophobia), FN claims to be in favour of gay rights. Why endorse such a site then?
Left-right or right-left mudslinging can be real fun but when the Moonbat slayers turn out to real Wingnuts then that's really pot meet kettle.
Claims also to be somewhat critical of Israel but one of Mad Zionists buddies nonetheless, even during the days when MZ still advocated "exterminating the vermin" (vermin = all Muslims). Not a critical peep from FN. Not once.
That whole blogging cluster that is FN's habitat has about as much credibility as The Autonomist (Rocco Dipissedoff) or FrontPageMag (David Horriblewitz).
FN reminds me of Mad Mel Phlips: probably got a piece of 9/11 debris on their heads and never fully recovered...
Still, I respect your willingness to see the best in people. Make sure you don't get screwed over though...
One of the Interesting things about this blog is how diverse the readers+comments are are.Very "Catholic" (although not in a Biblical Sense!)
Gert:
I'm not your wing man but damn you're making some fine sense.
Tony:
Not sure how that's Catholic?
Catholic-universal.
Last thing about FN (unless he wants to rebutt).
I'm deeply skeptical about FN's support for Saberi.
FN's natural habitat is an Islamophobic swamp (Islamophobic = those who can't distinguish between Islam and Jihadists) but of course they too, over the years, found some 'Really Good Muslims' (Useful Idiots more like) such as Walid wossiname, Gabriella somethingorother and of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the latter makes some reasonable points but is nonetheless a liar and an opportunist and the first illegal immigrant to make it to MP [in Holland] without being exposed first).
I don't think Islamophobes should come to the rescue of Muslims like Saberi, when that support is clearly opportunistic.
See also his stance:
"Saberi is a brave young woman for sticking it out for 6 years in that fascist country."
Iran is far from perfect but it's not a 'fascist country'. If FN wants to use the term fascist to Iran, then Bush's America was at least proto-fascist. But in FN's world Bush's tactics are legitimate because 'in defence of Freedom!" Which is why I used to call him GulagsNow, not FreedomNow.
I'm going to reply later tonight.
I already mentioned that Iran is not fascist. People use that term emotionally, rather than with concrete analysis. Trotsky defined fascism precisely, and called for Hitler's overthrow, eleven years before Churchill. Trotsky was called a warmonger for calling on countries to prepare for war so early.
Trotsky's pamphlet defining fascism, is a must read.
I reject both the term Islamophobia and Islamofascist. Both are emotional, rather than substantial terms. It's like Reagan gave a speech using the word rogue state. There is no such thing in substance as a rogue state.
Maryam Namazie was called Islamophobic about 30 times on the Islamophophobia watch Blog.
Love your new layout...I am now following your blog. This is a very difficult one! I was tempted`on my first reading to say well, if those are the rules and if she has subscribed to that religion then she ought to know better but I would be very slow in posting a comment. I do respect all religions and believe one should respect his/her chosen religion and abide by the rules.
Ok, ok, unless she isnt muslim, then the authorities would be wrong to generalise the rules. No country is an island. In Nigeria for example, laws regarding sharia cannot be applied to non-muslims! If you are a christian you cannot be punished for buying alcohol. But if you are muslim, then you can.
No poofty, you're not Gert's wing-man, you're more closely akin to his fudge packer.
RUNVS - Spell it out next time, Ren
FJ you're a homophobic cunt.
Go fuck yourself.
Gert,
Well at least you have toned down your viciousness and after your 3rd post you have finally mentioned Saberi.
Your obsession with me is quite juvenile and I assure you that you dont interest me in return.
Good day sir...
So Poofty, where were all you "Stay on topic" admonishment's against Gert? And how about a few "No personal attacks"?
Hypocrite can kiss my ass.
Fuck off, you bait until you can say: "well he's doing it" like a spoilt brat. Grow up!
Gert is on topic regarding the attitudes of some commenters here to the Roxana Saberi situation, you then use personal attacks and expect no come back and when you get it you cry hypocrite.
Grow up idiot, stop using this blog to expose your idiocy.
Gert was about as "on topic" as shit to an ice cream topping.
And please, just stick your head up Gert's ass a little farther... I can still see your neck, poofty
You're blustering, fuck off now.
And you're crusting over. Best shove your head up one more time and freshen up that fudge pack facial your sportin'.
Fuck off homophobe.
Sorry Gert, but the only one around here willing to do your re-butting for you is poofty, and we can all see what a mess he's made of things.
HaHaHaHa well I guess I'll just sit here and hit refresh every three minutes or so.
Wait a minute. They actually have wine in Iran?
This reminds me of a joke.
Why should you not pay an Iranian prostitute in paper currency?
Answer-she might eat it.
(Okay, well actually its an Arab prostitute, and actually I made it up, but who cares?)
...that went over my head pagan.
HaHaHaha come on now, what eats paper?
LOL! Reminds me of a certain Lt. I used to know...
A new lieutenant in the
French Foreign Legion arrives at an isolated base in Algeria. As a corporal shows him is quarters, he asks the corporal, "The base is rather isolated, what do the men do for female companionship?"
The corporal replies, "On Fridays, they let us use the camels."
The lieutenant is disgusted, but says nothing. After a few weeks, however, the new officer is very lonely. He decides that if everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't he.
The next Friday, the young lieutenant slinks over to the camel pens and, after looking around, drops his pants and starts humping a female camel. The camel is not amused and makes a huge uproar.
The same corporal comes in to investigate. "Lieutenent! What are you doing."
"Come on man," replied the embarrassed officer, "You yourself told me we could use the camels on
Fridays."
"Yes sir," replied the corporal. "But most of us just ride them into town."
Jams: The left and right on this blog can agree. Locally I deal with Maoists, who have a soft spot for Islamists.
JT's Tale: You can't keep changing your name every week. Are you in trouble with the law?
FJ: Some things are best ignored. Best if you ignore Daniel. The joke was funny at the end.
Nevin: I think thought should go into labels, when they are used.
Gert: It's a given that Freedom Now's agenda is different than someone from the left. I don't think Roxanne cares.
Tony: I have a guy who linked to my blog who calls himself an anarcho-Zionist.
Pagan: No comment.
Daniel H-G; Best if you and FJ ignore each other AMAP.
Freedom Now never did anything to make this discussion go so off track. There was a guy called Beakerkin, who came to this blog, declaring on his first post he was here to ruin it. FN did nothing like that.
Now I like that picture better. I can't stand to see beautiful women with that shit on their heads. I'm on board now. Free Roxanna. (even ifd she was stupid enough to do stuff she shouold have known not to do in a country where it was bound to get her arrested).
For a socialist federation of beautiful Persian, Arab, and Muslim women, and me!
I just linked this post on my Twitter account. That'll show 'em, by Gods.
FJ:
Gert's done with you.
Pagan:
Not so much 3 minutes, as every day. Until he quits in the threads. And twittering is the devil's work.
Ren:
Some things are indeed best ignored aren't they? Like homophobic language. Where I come from, you don't ignore it, you challenge it and this head in sand style is starting to look like condoning.
Yes or no?
Did I just hear Gert's sphincter speaking to me? Wow! You've got a very talented sphincter there, Gert.
Shut up you cunt.
FN:
"Your obsession with me is quite juvenile and I assure you that you dont interest me in return."
No obsession here, pal. But you're a faker. Someone who confounds 'parrotism' with 'patriotism'. And considering what some of your fellow travelers have done here in the past, I think Ren et al are entitled to a bit of background info.
Just my two cents, nothing more, nothing less.
FJ:
Don't try and bait me: I'm not biting. I'm not Daniel's keeper.
Sounds like you've got an incontinence problem then, Gert. Your sphincter claims to speak for you, yet you deny it.
Read the thread cunt, you making stuff up to fit your own fucking twisted imagination, just as you do with history.
KEEP UP!
Ooops, there it goes again.
You're a fake with no comebacks.
Fuck off.
Could somebody please translate for Gert's sphincter? All that's coming through is, "pfffft pffffffffffft pfft!"
Fuck off.
I think your sphincter needs a better interpreter, Gert.
Actually...fuck off you whiney, un-intelligent, fucking coward. You're a tedious, fucking brattish windbag.
You're not clever, bnever have been, you comeback like the nerd in the back of the class, weak and useless aside from block quoting Socrates which is also weak and useless.
Come on you prick, show me you have some guts.
Pagan:
"Now I like that picture better. I can't stand to see beautiful women with that shit on their heads. I'm on board now."
Well, so much for the sincerity of your motivations.
Tell me, do you have the same problem with Jewish women wearing head scarves? Hassidic Jews wearing hats? Hindu turbans?
All three monotheisms call for some degree of modesty; it's not a Muslim prerogative.
Considering how some western women go out of their way to dress as 'undressed' as possible, I see nothing wrong with those people who choose not to flash their bits about on every possible occasion.
FJ carries on with ridiculous Chavez bashing (over at his):
"It now comes to light that the CIA cybersecurity experts know he fixed his 2004 recall referendum. Two weeks ago, at a field hearing before the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in Orlando, Fla., CIA's Steve Stigall cited Venezuela, along with Macedonia and Ukraine, as examples of the risks of electronic voting.
Chavez, he said, controlled most voting machines and may have provided the program used to "randomly" select them for audit during a recount, the Miami Herald reported."
Steve Sigall says it and child believe it. Hey, when the CIA says it IT MUST be true. What with their impeccable reputation and all that.
Is there no end to the lengths the US will go to to try and discredit the election results of a free country, if it doesn't like these election results?
I'm guessing 'Will to Power'... 'Democracy' as a US shell game.
Won't wash, dumbo...
"'Democracy' as a US shell game."
Bingo, Halleleujah, and Tarnations, Gert has a stopped clock moment. Were it but possible they could come more than twice a day.
Daniel-
Twitter might be a good way to promote your play. You might eventually interact with other artists. You're limited in the number of words you can use per post, something like one hundred twenty characters, including spaces and punctuations, so you have to filter and distill your thoughts down to the main essence in order to be precise and compelling. It can be fun, so yeah I guess some might call it the devil's work. I think I'm already addicted to it but I have an addictive personality type anyways.
Nope, Pagan, I didn't get that.
How many times has the US intervened in other people's internal affairs in the past?
That's why 'freedom-lovers' like FN can't be remotely taken seriously: their freedom must always come at the expense of another's and they see no contradiction in that.
Try and answer the questions that were directed at you. (Hint: engage brain before fingers).
Hey I've been wanting to put a stop to a lot of the US foreign endeavors for some time now, but usually when I do it I get called a "xenophobe" or an "isolationist". Bottom line, nobody has a constitutional right to engage in foreign trade, you pays your money and you takes your chances just like everybody else anywhere else, and you shouldn't expect the power of the US military to be there to hold your hand for you.
US Democracy is more like a shell game with each passing year, and I'm sick of it. My pro-Americanism is limited to respect for our constitution and its ideals. The US government is an entirely different beast that needs a strong leash.
As for the other stuff, that's just me whacking off and you getting offended by it. Buy a sense of humor.
Pagan:
I wasn't offended, just didn't thinks it was funny. Humour is relative.
Somebody sent me an email saying the picture I had up offended the writer. I changed it, because I'm content with either one.
yes, the pic if roxana in that scarf is deceiving...it was taken after she was taken into custody...just for the record she didn't buy a bottle of wine...her father said the phone call was monitored
shiraz is the name of a wine...shiraz is the name of a town in iran that was bombed on April 3, 2008...so, the iranians dropped the bottle of wine thing because if the iranians thought that roxana had anything to do with that bottle of wine ALLAH SURELY LEFT THEM IN ERROR
what doesn't suprise me...is that people follow instead of lead...renegade lead when he changed the photo...there is a story to that but that is for another post
yours truly, ravin
Twitter is evil like MySpace. Go with Facebook.
Farmer: At your blog, the discussion is civil. Most of the comments agree with you, but not all. Still it's civil. I don't expect you to form friendships with some here, but to deal on the basis of ideas, not the person.
I've got many hits on this post. Lately my numbers are doubling. If people are reading about this case, they shouldn't be subjected to the playground stuff.
Someone new here like Ravin, who has been actively involved in the campaign for Roxanne, shouldn't have to read this garbage.
Spare me the they do it too. The bigger issue is the tone has to change.
Pagan: Ravin has a stronger opinion about the picture than I do. The first picture was from the Facebook support group.
Daniel H-G; It stinks that a thread about an issue that has so much support, can degenerate like it did.
The attack on Freedom Now, opened the door for Farmer to attack. I think his politics are based on wrong assumptions, but he never trolled here.
The discussion went to hell before FJ came. He didn't help.
Gert: One of the contributors to this blog, was in Venezuela as an election observer. The masses have great trust in the voting's fairness. The person went to both barrios and opposition areas.
Ravin; Thank you for visiting.
What is Ravin's connection to Roxana?
FN: I don't know. Hopefully we'll hear more from Ravin, who is starting a blog.
Ren wrote:
"The bigger issue is the tone has to change."
Only moderation is going to achieve that, no matter how you turn it.
Look at the really big fora (Guardian CiF, e.g.): all would degrade into mudslinging without moderators.
As regards the "attack", when support for someone like Saberi comes from a hypocrite who uses his latest brainfart on Iran and Saberi for some Obama bashing (referring also to Martin McGuinness as 'a former IRA terrorist' - Obama dining with terrorists, do you get it? wink wink, nudge nudge) then denunciation isn't off topic.
Calling this kind of support "bipartisan" really is a hoot.
I'd compare FN's support for Iranian jailed dissidents to a Channel 4 documentary on British anti-Semitism, made by Richard Littlejohn, and denounced by many British Jews on the grounds that Littlejohn is a rabid homophobe and anti-immigration nut. No one needs the Littlejohns of the world to protect anyone from discrimination. Rather they need protection from Littlejohn.
No one needs a rabid Neocon like FN to come to Saberi's aid when FN's agenda is plain for all to see. I accept I should have stuck to that point though...
So who were these "Jews" that denounced Littlejohn? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion they are secular Jews as opposed to religious Jews, who are by far the greater targets of anti-Semitism, and who by and large don't give a big rats ass about what secular Jews think? I don't know anything about Littlejohn, but I have this strange suspicion he couldn't really be all that bad if you hate him so much.
Pagan, Pagan, Pagan:
What did I tell you about 'engaging brain - then fingers', huh?
Did you read the link?
"So who were these "Jews" that denounced Littlejohn? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion they are secular Jews as opposed to religious Jews, who are by far the greater targets of anti-Semitism, and who by and large don't give a big rats ass about what secular Jews think? I don't know anything about Littlejohn, but I have this strange suspicion he couldn't really be all that bad if you hate him so much."
Why, secular Jews are less bothered about anti-Semitism than religious Jews? Littlejohn, as far as I know, isn't a religious Jew (but he is Jewish).
I don't hate Littlejohn and hadn't heard about him until that documentary in question and the denunciation of this homophobe, gypsy basher and worse besides that, by some British Jews on TV and elsewhere, denouncing this racist bigot for what he is.
Learn to read. Or should I say, learn to click. Left click, only once but firmly. The link is a blog post from Jews Sans Frontieres. Do you reckon they might be Jewish? I can assure you they are. All four of them. If you ask them nicely they won't even laugh at you.
Gert,
So glad you're out to protect the world from FN and the Right's Machiavellian agenda. It's a very "noble" enterprise. My only question is, after you've run FN out of town, who's going to protect the world from yours?
The readers here are all grown ups. They don't need to be "protected" from heterodox ideas. Let FN's arguments speak for themselves. Trust in the reader's abilities to discern each argument's merits and demerits. They're certainly intelligent enough that they don't need you to set up false labels of "racism", scarecrows and other strawmen to scare them off.
Besides, you won't always be around to do their thinking for them and issue character warnings.
Have a nice day.
renegade,
u know how to run this blogger stuff better than i do...so, i am still workin on it
now, on the pic of roxana in the green scarf that u had up originally...that pic came from the national press photographers association...and on their site www.nppa.org the pic just has her name under it...there is no name of any photographer...and i found out that the pic is entered into the 2009 photo of the year contest...as someone said "it's just a contest"...i wasn't laughin'
feature news story has stated that they did not provide roxana with a photographer and she used a local photographer (which i am sure she wasn't the one paying the bill)...
if u go to freeroxana.net one will seen in that pic of her that the scarf is clearly green...so, i believe that the person who took the pic of roxana with the scarf wrapped in islamic manner around her face (or the first pic u had up) used a coloring on the computor to make it look more bluish as not to leave a trail of the scarf...
as i have said that picture was taken after she was in custody...now, why is that important...
in the Holy Quran sura 18:31 it talks of the "green robes of fine silk" in reference to the Prsians who the Prophet Mohammed had not conquered yet and the riches of the Persians were to be permanent heritage of the muslims...of course, i could go into a more detailed account of this prophecy...but not here...
for FN, i do not know roxana but i do know that she had nothing to do with anything except being a young girl who wanted to see her country of origin...and as someone said here she must be brave...i second that thought...
for another time,
ravin
Bottom line, nobody has a constitutional right to engage in foreign trade, you pays your money and you takes your chances just like everybody else anywhere else, and you shouldn't expect the power of the US military to be there to hold your hand for you.
Are you familiar with the history and ancient symbol that represented "foreign trade". If you were, then perhaps you wouldn't be as inclined to make statements like the one above. Merchanitilism is alive an well in the 21st century.
I didn't mean nobody had the right to engage in foreign trade, just that they don't have the right to expect the backing of the US military to protect them as they do so. I can see some worthwhile exceptions, such as guarding shipping in the Persian Gulf and things of that nature. I just don't believe we have the right to impose democracy anywhere for the benefit of Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken. The long-term expense of such endeavors wouldn't be worth it to the American taxpayers. If a reasonable trade agreement can't be reached on a bi-lateral level, then its probably not worth pursuing further.
excuse me...but what does roxana saberi have to do with foreign trade and or the miltary coming to a companies rescue?
by the geneva conventions Iran has continously taken hostages which is against what the Prophet Mohammed had stated and doesn't prove anything other than their own desire for power and the things of this life when Allah is concerned with their soul in the Hereafter...
pray tell, please tell me the ancient symbol for foreign trade
ravin
The sole purpose trade serves is to draw the two earthworms voluntarily to the same power pole and unite them. Have you ever seen the temple complex at Karnak symbolizing the unification of the Upper and Lower kingdoms of Egypt? The Precinct of Montu will be unleashed unless the traders shuttle like Kamutef up and down the Avenue of Sphinxes Between Amen-Re and Mut. ;-)
The ancient symbol, the caduceus, is hyperlinked to information describing what it represents in the post in which it is mentioned.
...and this has nothing to do with Roxana. Sorry.
Montu (god of War) is the "bull" of Amen Re (Male deity). The "bull" (Kamutef) of his mother (Mut - female deity) is "trade". There are many "sphinxes" along that route.... however... but the "whip" remains beyond Kamutef's reach. Fertility (prosperity) is not (see the gods other hand).
FJ, You are more of a pagan than "Pagan Temple"!
Anyway... Ravin,
Its great that you want to start blogging. I hope that you will use it to get the word out about Roxana and the tyranny of the Iranian Regime.
I would suggest starting two blogs. One blog for testing, so you can try things and not worry about messing it up -and- a 2nd that would be your live blog, which you will use only to post your final copy. After a while you will need the test blog less and less.
There are plenty of resources if you need help. Peter at "Blogger Tips & Tricks" is very helpful. He will follow up if you leave a comment on his site. Please try to find a related post out of courtesy (he monitors comments so if you leave a comment on a post from 2004 he will see it)...
http://www.bloggertipsandtricks.com
You will also need to use simple HTML code and there are plenty of resources for that...
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
Enjoy your new hobby!!!!!!!
Ravin: It may be my browser, but the comment box didn't open yet.
1) I think having blogs link to you is important. The more that do, the higher in Google you are.
2) Keywords are important. I daily get hits on my Diego Rivera and Bollywood posts, because of keywords.
Pagan: The Zionist movement tends to attract secular Jews, more than religious except at my blog.
Freedom Now: Thank you for the links.
I like the idea of a test blog.
FJ: You're over my head.
Gert: I'll tell you on your blog something that I don't want to here, in the next few days. It would divert the discussion.
Ren:
Look forward to it.
You also wrote:
"1) I think having blogs link to you is important. The more that do, the higher in Google you are."
Don't over-estimate the importance of inbound links, especially when those links are purely reciprocal like blogrolls (it still helps a bit, though). The links that really count are those that come from a text that's relevant to your own text. Even more so if the linking documents use a text anchor that's a keyword of your text: that reinforces the relevance of your text on that particular keyword.
On niche keywords, careful placement of the keywords in strategic places can do miracles for positioning: I have some very high rankings on very niche 'backyard science' posts.
Farmer:
Where did I say anything about "racism" in relation to FN? I pointed out that it's strange he once very enthusiastically endorsed moonbattery.com, which is thoroughly riddled with racist and homophobic statements. FN's not racist but that makes it a strange endorsement, no?
...and Barack Obama thoroughly endorsed his pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright. You're the one attempting to make non-linkages, not me.
Perhaps there's more to Moonbattery.com than your characterization of it as a website exclusively filled with racism and homophobia....
Perhaps the website contains a general ridiculing of every cow the Left currently holds sacred, extreme racial over-sensitivity and the worship of sodomy being but two of its favorite bugaboos. That in itself is a good reason to love the site.
Perhaps extreme racial over-sensitivity is a poor characterization of the Left's attitude towards minorities. A better characterization would be their purposefully debilitating and patronizing attitude towards them.
You're wrong about Obama and Wright, this is an old one but not a good one.
"Worship of sodomy"
Show me where and how this imaginary 'Left' does that, or shut up.
Also, "A better characterization would be their purposefully debilitating and patronizing attitude towards them." again, sho wme where this imaginary 'Left' has done that, again, rather than use vague generalisations based on your own partizan prejudice, how about you shut the fuck up?
I await the evidence.
I am not in trouble with the law my dear friend. My email address stays the same on the blog. I just get bored of the blog and I guess according to the rules of blogger, one is to treat the blog anew each passing day.
just still praying for roxana...and looking into how to run the blogger stuff...i did start a blog for roxana...maybe after some rest i will get some more posts up
have a good night everyone
ravin
The irony on this thread is amazing.
Anyway, thanks Ravin. You are the only visitor consistently respecting the tone of this post...
Gert: I have hundreds of blogs linked to mine. I find about three a week.
FJ: A better characterization would be their purposefully debilitating and patronizing attitude towards them.
There are problems with how the left at times relates to minorities. It is often trying too hard to be supportive.
To say that without acknowledging the history of the right, partricularly post civil rights legislation, is outrageous. The Republicans to start always making Michael Steele apologize for something.
Daniel H-G: The world is not divided right/left like FJ says. Left and right aren't as clearly defined.
Ravin: I'm the first to link to both of your blogs.
Freedom Now: You have a troll problem yourself at your blog.
The Green Serpent: I'm linked to your blog.
Freedomnow:
You don't know what irony is clearly. But if think you do, show us where it is. As for respecting the tone of the post, you'll see a lot of that go down the pan here.
Ren:
I know that the world isn't divided into the Left and the Right as FJ believes in order to make his vague points, hence why I put Left and Right in these: ""
"Worship of sodomy"
Show me where and how this imaginary 'Left' does that, or shut up.
Easy. Marriage is a "sacred" religious rite and has been for millenia. Is the Left satisfied w/civil unions? No. They demand homosexual "marriage".
Also, "A better characterization would be their purposefully debilitating and patronizing attitude towards them." again, sho wme where this imaginary 'Left' has done that.
Evidence? Barack Obama.
It's called "pretending there are no mental or physical group differences between the races" and then using this erroneous supposition as the legal basis for affirmative action. There's a reason why no "standards" are being upheld. Not even ones as simple as "citizenship".
The world is not divided right/left like FJ says. Left and right aren't as clearly defined.
Sure they are. Master and slave morals. Guess who the slaves are.
WOAH THERE SLICK, NOT SO FAST!
That's plain bad maths, I asked you to show me where this imaginary 'left' worships sodomy. First off you have to prove the existence of this vague, generalised 'Left' and we've had this debate before with Pagan also, who agreed with me that wild generalisations about anyone on the political spectrum is of little use and not healthy because grouping divierse interests means you miss the nuances of their position.
I would baulk at people slinging around wild generalisations about the 'Right' which doesn't exist either.
So do that first.
Having said that, let's look at your evidence that the imaginary 'left' worship sodomy.
"Marriage is a "sacred" religious rite and has been for millenia."
This is not true at all, especially globally. Marriage means a vast array of different things to different people, some class it as a relationship with god but many don't. The rules of marriage and the moral code that has governed it has changed often both with and without the help of any of the religious codes.
"Is the Left satisfied w/civil unions? No. They demand homosexual "marriage"."
Again, what left and what demands, I'm sure some may demand this just as some demand that all gay, lesbian bi-sexual people need to burn in hell and are evil but they are fringe beliefs, not representative and also fall into the trap of wild generalisations, of which you seem so fond.
"Evidence? Barack Obama."
Again, glib, generalised, poorly thought out and that just about sums up your approach to everything. No good I'm afraid, you have given no evidence, just partizan, personal opinion. There is a difference FJ.
And FJ, again, regarding the left/right nonsense, your quoting of a dead old German is of little use, you do realise that on many things that wonderful old philosopher was wrong or at the very least, offering his own intellectual take on the matter at hand.
As very clever as he was and I'm a massive fan, the world is not as simple as that.
You'd like it to be so becuase it suits your simple method of attack and argument but thankfully, you're out of step.
A blessing indeed.
...before I answer any of your points, danny, you're going to have to prove to me that YOU exist. And no fair quoting that dead German when you try and do it.
FJ:
What a bunch of tripe you're trying to sell here. People like you justify the Left for seeking equal rights for minorities and show it's as necessary today as it was yesterday to promote equality.
Moonbattery is about more that racism and homophobia, I never said otherwise. The site nonetheless reeks of both. Apart from sheer stupidity. 'Van Helsing', moonbat slayer par excellence, once attributed the demise of the US nuclear inductry exclusively to the rather lame movie "The China Syndrome". Not a mention of Harrisburg (Three Miles Island), a real-life nuclear accident that happened three days before the movie opened.
The level of stupidity that reins sites like that, including Rocco DiPiPissedoff (anti-Protester) is a real testament to the imbecility of the Hard Right. Rocco's now got a new comment policy: 'No leftists, please' (couldn't make up this shit if they paid me for it!). Guess what: now he gets no comments full stop, apart basically from Nanc (who reverentially refers to him as 'Mr DiPippo.) and... oh... yeah: Mad Zionist!
Ooops, 'thirteen', not 'three'...
So basically FJ you're a coward, lazy, or both.
I don't quote the dead old German hardly ever or at all.
Gert,
You don't advocate equal rights for minorities. You advocate "special" rights for them. There's a difference.
Besides, there's nothing more futile in the world than watching someone try and legislate equality between blind and sighted men or between normal people and neurotics.
What determines your rank is the quantum of power you are: the rest is cowardice.-- Nietzsche WtP 858 (Nov. 1887-March 1888)
I don't quote the dead old German hardly ever or at all.
That probably explains why are you asking me to prove the existence of something, but prohibitting me from quoting the world's first existentialist.
And since you know nothing of existentialism or ontology, you're obviously not a good judge relative to the existence of anything, let alone a Left and a Right.
Prove to me that you exist, Danny. I'm waiting.
Once again FJ and sorry Gert for intruding on this one but you are over simplyfying the issue vastly and consistently to fit your own world view.
Who is this 'you' you speak of, Gert? Have you asked Gert what his policy is on equal opportunities, bearing in mind he is UK based? Or are you referring once again to this imaginary Left or imaginary Liberal movement?
I think you're trying to rip the discussion off topic again to one of your hobby horse subjects, which in this case I'm guessing is the moves taken by successive American governments to make some efforts the evil of slavery and the continued imbalance between black and white communities in the US?
No doubt you believe black people to be 'naturally' inferiour, I wouldn't put it past you considering your feelings on homosexuality.
Typical of you, drag every debate into the mud so you can run your mouth off over your petty issues.
FJ:
You're ducking the issue, clearly I do exist as a human, there is televisual and first hand evidence of that.
That is off the point, you hate your ideas being interrogated and exposed as second rate.
Keep dodging but you know it makes you look bad and that you have nothing to back up your silly ideas with apart from your own opinion and prejudice.
And once again you drag a thread through the mud as always.
To repeat FJ, you are lazy and a coward.
Unless of course you willing to back up your bluster with coherent argument and no block quotes?
clearly I do exist as a human, there is televisual and first hand evidence of that.
You're a veritable legend in your own mind! LOL!
No, not at all.
Stick on topic FJ, like in all of the other threads I've bested you in, you're flagging.
Back up your statements with some evidence or stop making such wild generalisations.
Easy.
You've already demonstrated that you are incompetent to render any judgement on matters of existence or ontology.
So why should I offer any proofs on such matters? I'd have to be nuts to try.
You are exposed FJ.
It's a shame for you.
I've asked you to utilise more than rhetoric, to actually provide an in depth argument to back up your wild and lazy generalisations and you pull the ridiculous stunt of first denying I exist and then saying that I am not worthy of a response on the matter.
Cheap and desperate shots indeed but they are transperant thankfully.
"So why should I offer any proofs on such matters?"
Becuase without proof FJ your ideas are merely your opinions backed with no evidence, which is fine, we are all entitled to opions obviously but you wield them as if they are concrete facts, rather than your own prejudices.
A step forward I think, you've learnt that to wield ideas as weapons they must have something concrete to enable them to have any impact.
I look forward to you offering a higher quality of well thought out ideas and this is for your benefit, it will make your thoughts and arguments more compelling.
LOL. The day you present a well thought out idea is the day I'll never feel the need to post here again.
I'll reply tonight.
The goals of the gay movement, are tied to the women's movement. Unfortunately they believe their program can be won by electing liberal Democrats (in the US). They still don't understand that the Democratic Party is the graveyard of social movements.
There are gay rightists. I don't know why. The right has nothing to offer. The libertarian right is more about corporate rights than human.
FJ:
"You don't advocate equal rights for minorities. You advocate "special" rights for them."
No, I don't nor does the Left, on the whole.
I think you're conflating with 'affirmative action'. Many on the Left are opposed to that.
Accepting that people of whatever colour are no better or no worse than people of another colour has nothing to do with awarding special rights. It's called common sense or should be today. Instead the Hard Right comes up with red herrings like 'caucasophobia'. Tell to the guys at 'Der Sturmer'...
Gay marriage (as in 'wedding' with full legal status) is an American issue and a result of your ridiculous Kulturekampfen. Although watching the spectacle it appears to have little to do with culture as I see it. The Right, once again seriously on the retreat, decides to launch a desperate rearguard action. Doomed to fail of course.
Two tribes...
'caucasophobia'? Sardines, anyone?
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva left many shocked this week with a tirade over "white, blue-eyed" people, according to the Daily Mail. The paper also reported the following:
President Lula, who is the leader of Brazil’s main left-wing party, said that "no black man or woman, no indigenous person, no poor person" could be blamed for the global banking crisis.
Instead, "this was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics," he said.
"Now they have demonstrated that they don’t know anything about economics," he added.
Gordon Brown, Britain’s Prime Minister, watched uncomfortably from his seat. The meeting was an attempt to agree on a bailout for world trade.
But Lula had much more to talk about than just trade issues.
"I’m not acquainted with any black banker," Lula said. "The part of humanity that’s responsible should pay for the crisis."
Lula said that the coming G20 summit in London would be "a little bit spicy" and feature "a little bit of heat."
Gay marriage (as in 'wedding' with full legal status) is an American issue and a result of your ridiculous Kulturekampfen. Although watching the spectacle it appears to have little to do with culture as I see it.
Then I'd invite you to read Freud's "Totem and Taboo", "Civilization and its' Discontents" and Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization".
After all, you're the one that wants to carve a new "totem" onto the existing cultural pole.
Two tribes...
...but no Left/Right?
FJ:
Nice to know I effect you that much but we all know your reasons for posting are purely selfish and to expound your backward and poorly thought out generalised ideas.
And once again, via block quoting an article you move the thread away from your previous, unbacked comments and onto new subject matter. Rather like hit and run. Very sad indeed but I suppose if I had no idea I'd do the same.
Hope you get better soon and find the strength to back up your comments with actual evidence.
Good luck.
Hope you get better soon and find the strength to back up your comments with actual evidence.
...but do so w/o linking or block quotes. "Prove it, but no fair using actual evidence..." LOL!
Not at all, your block quotes have very little to do with evidence and everything to do with showing off and the most facile links to the topic in question.
Very simple, you say something like, the 'Left' worships sodomy, you have to prove such a sweeping generalisation with more than a glib response, or, you re-phrase the idea so it is more than just a poorly thought out sound bite that gives you a perverse sense of glee.
Surely you don't need me to tell you how to write?
Seemingly so, oh well, poor old chap.
FJ:
As regards:
"Besides, there's nothing more futile in the world than watching someone try and legislate equality between blind and sighted men or between normal people and neurotics."
With those who are disabled we can do three things:
1. Help them play a paid part in society. Technology can overcome innate disabilities. Easily.
2. Shun them from the work place on the grounds that they're 'not-competitive' and keep them on welfare forever.
3. Gas and cremate them.
I've a feeling that most people are for option 1, some for option 2. Since as the Welfare state clashes with your Will to Power Weltanschauung, I'm supposing it's option 3 you advocate.
On neurotics I'm not so sure. I wouldn't employ you for instance. They can fine me for it, it'd money well spent.
Please don't give me your Freudian bullshit on homosexuality. I don't need your geniuses to see that punishing people for consenting, harmless activity is a no-brainer.
You're living testimony of how the most repugnant of views can be quasi-justified by means of the scribblings of past-their-sell-by-date luminaries.
Now bring up AIDS please.
I see you're still pre-occupied with Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the US. Move on, pal. You and yours lost that battlette a long time ago.
"After all, you're the one that wants to carve a new "totem" onto the existing cultural pole."
Owing to the topic of discussion here, that sounds painful.
On the subject of gay marriage, I have nothing against it, I would just ask gays to understand why I for one don't support a party that is so diametrically opposed to so many other things I believe in, and so supportive of so many things I am against. They don't seem to get it. It's not all about them. In reality, gay issues appeal only to a very small fringe element of American society. Yes, in a close election, it can swing the results. Otherwise, it influences no one outside of limited target areas.
Now in that close election it can serve as a rallying point, as a get out the vote drive. But if the margin is any further apart than two percentage points, its unlikely to change the results. So what does that tell you? Gay issues are in the great scheme of things a minor issue, even here in so-called conservative America.
As for why that small percentage of American conservatives might be so all fired up to come out to vote against them when they might otherwise be inclined to stay home on election day, I think the gay rights groups need to look at their tactics more so than objections to their lifestyles.
Finally, yes, FJ, there is a Daniel Hoffman Gill. You can find him on YouTube as the main actor on a Norwegian Keno commercial, and he's actually pretty good.
And yes, Daniel, there is a left and right in America, and its not pretty, just like there is, despite your earlier claims to the contrary, political correctness. It exists on both sides, actually, but I will now focus on the left.
What you and others perceive as an absence of the left in American politics is in reality a lack of real support which necessitates the traditional "move to the center" during election cycles. But they are what they are.
To give you an example, the left seems to dispute the scientific evidence that thoroughbred horses might be bred specifically to bring out those most sterling qualities that will produce a champion race horse. They would insist that this never happened and any belief to the contrary is bad science. They seem to find this rather offensive, although of course it is a fact. That never happened, they insist, and even if it were tried, it was obviously unsuccessful, to hear them tell it, and did by no means result in the breeding of thoroughbred racing champions for years down the line.
I'll say no further on the subject, except for this-you do understand I'm not really talking about race horses, right?
Pagan confirms my existence! HURRAH!
Who would've thought it? Thanks for that.
The titles Left and Right, as we've already discussed some time ago you and I and we came to an agreement, are fine for a loose sketch but do us no favours in a deeper level of debate and enables generalisations, which in turn enables brickbats.
As for Political Correctness, I have a problem with a use of the term because there is no movement or group that call themselves such and the term was invented by those in the conserbative, Christian movement in the US.
Once again, it's a silly brickbat to hammer down good ideas based on positive and half-full thinking rather than negative and half-empty.
As for the horses, I'm not sure where you going and not sure if I quite care right now.
Well, like I said, both the Left and the Right (here in America) have their own versions of political correctness. If you go to a conservative American church, for example, and you speak to some fellow parishioners in favor of gay marriage or abortion, then you are being very un-PC indeed, and it won't take you long to figure it out.
My point is, yes it exists, but its not just a phenomenon of the left, but of both sides. The major difference is, again here in America, the left version has the official media and to an extent government sanction.
Pagan:
"To give you an example, the left seems to dispute the scientific evidence that thoroughbred horses might be bred specifically to bring out those most sterling qualities that will produce a champion race horse. They would insist that this never happened and any belief to the contrary is bad science."
What you say is complete quatch, no one on the Left doesn't believe that cross breeding leads to champions or that saying so is bad science.
You're hopelessly conflating things.
Inbreeding in dogs (in particular in Britain, because of the intensity of the practice) does concentrate in the breed the characteristics the breeder most values (esthetic traits, mainly). But sever inbreeding also leads to concentration of bad traits such as genetically inherited diseases. British Pedigree dogs are full of them.
Race horse breeders do not use inbreeding (e.g. father-daughter or mother-son, repeated many times over, as in some British pedigree breeds), they use stallions and host-mothers from well distinct lines. That's good and breeds healthy, fast horses.
Your account of this is... bad science!
Pagan:
What you describe in the church scenario, isn't political correctness, it's someone stating different beliefs to someone else or having a wide range of beliefs within one particular group.
Until I see a Policitally Correct Society of the Globe, I'm afraid it really doesn't exist, it's a shorthand term to label positive ideas as negative, rather like the word grass or snitch does to those that which to expose the terrible acts of others.
Oh well.
And I still am not too sure why we're talking about this.
Gert-
You are right, of course, in almost every regard, but then again, I wasn't really talking about horses.
Daniel-
Well, the church-goers reaction to the person who advocates such beliefs is what makes them "politically correct". By advocating the contrary position, that parishioner will be on the outs. He will from then on receive a very cold reception from the majority of his fellow church-goers. It's like a clique in other words. If you want to "fit in" then you have to play by the rules of the tribe.
I understand what you're saying but the phrase 'politically correct' has no home in your point, which stands up fine without the phrase.
Daniel:
"Until I see a Policitally Correct Society of the Globe [...]"
TBH, I've never really come across anyone who rails against PC that wasn't somewhat discriminatory in this or that way.
PC can indeed 'go mad' or be used as a political weapon. But being 'politically correct' usually means you're a decent person.
Racists always love to try and turn the tables, it's all they've got...
Homophobes e.g. will, when confronted often say something like: "it's not a phobia if you don't like it!" (very drole). No, but it is if you start discriminating against them because you don't like them...
I'll be on later. Just a quick FYI to FJ: In Brazil, my group leads the Black Socialist Movement, opposing Lula's divisive affirmative action. In addition we hold offices in Brazil, as members of the Marxist wing of the party.
Lula is some leftist, he opposes nationalizations, and sends troops to Haiti, to put down anything progressive.
Gert:
I do agree, everyone who I've met that has a 'problem' with the fiction that is 'political correctness' is in someway bigoted, that is my first hand experience. Also, I do agree that most people whose views can be assigned under the PC fiction, are decent and the views in question are decent and good-spirited.
On neurotics I'm not so sure. I wouldn't employ you for instance. They can fine me for it, it'd money well spent.
So, by default, Gert favors: "2. Shun them from the work place on the grounds that they're 'not-competitive' and keep them on welfare forever.
---
I don't need your geniuses to see that punishing people for consenting, harmless activity is a no-brainer.
Nobody today is for punishing sodomites. Homosexuals can sodomize each other all they want. The question is, does society wish to encourage such behavior by subsidizing it with "holy rites" and tax breaks? And based upon the etiology of the AIDS epidemic, I'd have to answer that question with a firm and resounding NO!
---
I see you're still pre-occupied with Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the US. Move on, pal. You and yours lost that battlette a long time ago.
LOL! Have you ever sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic? The Constitution is VERY clear on the minimum requirements for serving in the capacity of the American Commander in Chief, and if a national crises were to ever arise involving a domestic insurrection or civil unrest, the Left would pay a very severe penalty for not having addressed this issue in a timely and forthright manner.
Finally, yes, FJ, there is a Daniel Hoffman Gill. You can find him on YouTube as the main actor on a Norwegian Keno commercial, and he's actually pretty good.
Perhaps, but how do I know that this person on YouTube and the person posting as Dannyboy are one and the same? He could in fact be Shirley Temple posing as this actor, for all you know. Besides, I'm absolutely POSITIVE that the Daniel Hoffman-Gill from when that Youtube commercial was shot is NOT the same Daniel Hoffman-Gill today. After all, Panta Rhei, "We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not."
In Brazil, my group leads the Black Socialist Movement, opposing Lula's divisive affirmative action. In addition we hold offices in Brazil, as members of the Marxist wing of the party.
And in this country your group leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, perpetuating divisive affirmative action through flawed legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act, and leading to the economic collapse of the entire Western World.
How do you justify holding such antithetical ideological positions. I can think of only one. Will to Power.
After all,
"The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power."-- Nietzsche (WtP #534)
Boner question: How is Daniel Hoffman-Gill much like Theseus' ship?
Answer: The best parts of him were all lost overboard on the maiden voyage!
Daniel,
You asked where the irony is? Just look at Gert's comment:
"As regards the "attack", when support for someone like Saberi comes from a hypocrite (Freedom Now) who uses his latest brainfart on Iran and Saberi for some Obama bashing."
This comes from a guy who uses a post on Saberi to attack me. The sum total of comments by him regarding Saberi (without using her name to attack me) adds up to ZERO.
The current thread has got up to 147 comments, but has been dominated by the topics introduced by Gert that have only served to deflect from the issue at hand.
My stance on Obama's negligence on this issue is bipartisan. Look at Sam Sedaei's Huffpo article denouncing Obama on the same issue as I have. This comes from an Obama supporter, who titled his article,
"Why is President Obama Not Protecting American Citizens Abroad?".
Hypocrisy is a refuge of shallow minds.
FJ: Much of what you are saying comes from not knowing about Marxism. I even recently corrected Daniel about this. The word is equality is misused.
If you read Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme a short book, you'll see Marx argued with anarchists who described equality as meaning equality in all wages. Marx believed a unit of skilled labor is not equal to a unit of unskilled labor.
The equality of oppurtunity is different than equality in the abstarct.
Gay marriage is a democratic right. It will inevitably come. Conservatives don't even call for referendums anymore, due to it mobilizes pro gay rights voters.
Marcuse was discredited in 1968, as far as I'm concerned. He is what you can call a revisionist.
Freedom Now: Gert said he was wrong to divert the discussion. Reread the comments. What Gert said is pretty light compared to how Beakerkin attacked me at your blog. You never commented on the content of his attack. I stopped myself from reprinting Beakerkin's attack on me at my blog.
There are lesser known political prisoners in Iran, who need help from Obama. The help will come from revolution.
Daniel H-G: I reearched political correct. The first time that term was used was by Trotsky, to describe anti-Stalinist Bolsheviks.
In modern terms it is used to shield racist, sexist language from criticism. You're right in the modern sense, the right invented the modern term. I can even name the guy.
Pagan: The only reason the gay movement seems small, is because the leaders are connected to the Democrats, who keep it from being on the streets.
Gert: never really come across anyone who rails against PC that wasn't somewhat discriminatory in this or that way.
True.
just thought maybe i would ask how anyone knows whether President Obama is not worried about Roxana or anyone else...
and as far as the rest of the political prisoners in Iran because the regmie has lost its' way (maybe someother time i will expand on that) it will work it's self out
have a good night
Freedom Now: Gert said he was wrong how he attacked you. Gert's attack doesn't compare to the attack Beakerkin did to me at your blog.
Ravin: Your comment is well meaning, but naive. Obama as Bush, Clinton, and other presidents are interested in geopolitical strategies, not internal politics.
Like asking Bush to do something about human rights in China. It will not happen.
Marcuse was discredited in 1968, as far as I'm concerned.
Marcuse is the only Marxist today worthy of study as ONLY he actually spells out the direction in which the New/Progressive Left is headed.
FJ:
You are very confused it seems, I'll try and help you but it's clearly a losing battle with you.
You spend too much time on silly word games, setting up strawmen arguments and not answering the questions put to you becuase, quite frankly, you have no answer. Please see your sillyness over whether I exist or not...
Bless you.
Just so you know, Obama is an American.
Also, plenty of nations punish sodomy, inclusing many parts of the United States and many gay, lesbian and vbi-sexual people are raped and murdered for their sexuality, try not to be so glib about something you know so little.
Also, again, AIDS/HIV is not only a problem amongst gay men, I know you struggle to grasp that more hetreosexual people have it then gay men do but do keep up with evidence and facts, even if it does contridict your prejudice and ignorance.
Be open to learning and stop giving so much time to discredited ideas silly boy.
Freedomnow:
It's not irony, it's about pointing out truth, Gert is for all I can see of your work, true in his feelings to you and what you do.
As for threads going up with silly comments, this is nothing, anything with FJ in will reach at least 200, where eventually he is crushed by me. The Pakistan SWAT one is now over 300 but I will beat him, like I always do.
Oh and as for hypocrisy, don't throw stones when you frequent a glass house dear chap.
Also, plenty of nations punish sodomy, inclusing many parts of the United States.
Name one part of the United States that actually has "punished" anyone for sodomy (not forced or underaged) in the past ten years.
Sodomites have had the run of the land since SCOTUS handed down their decision in Lawrence vs. Texas. Homosexuals have had full and equal rights in America ever since. The push for gay marriage is no longer a civil rights issues, it has become a "special privledges" issue.
FJ:
Thanksfully the supreme court ruling in 03 overruled the vast number of US states with anti-sodomy laws but that didn't stop cases being brought, the last case I can find that was brought was 2002. Many of the anti-sodomy laws still stand and have been oft enforced and would no doubt still be if not thanks to a supreme court ruling.
Not something to be proud of.
And remember, there are some places even more barbarian in their attitudes to sex and sexuality that your fair nation.
Marriage is not a special privilege.
You really have some backward attitudes towards your fellow human.
What made you so mean-spirited?
Poor lad.
Is this a 3rd grade classroom? This is the last comment in which I will address this “he says, she says” nonsense that has nothing to do with Saberi.
I can tell you horror stories about how Gert attacked Beak, but this game is juvenile.
Anyway, you say that I never commented on Beaks attack against you, but I did tell him not to call you names like “moron”. If he continues such actions I will not tolerate it.
FN:
"I can tell you horror stories about how Gert attacked Beak, but this game is juvenile."
It's really unbelievable that you should bring this up.
Beaker had been gunning for Eitan (Greg) and me for ages and ages, long before I finally retaliated. Beaker even revealed medical information on Eitan, when the two were once friends, how low can you stoop?
I, rather stupidly, apologised for my comments to Beaker, he however didn't and kept attacking and attacking. He started also attacking MZ for allowing me to post at his.
Finally I resorted to seriously threatening to reveal Beaker's real name to shut him up. It worked and it seems that for well over a year we have a functioning non-aggression pact in place. I don't mention him and he doesn't mention me. This is the one exception, I assure you.
On that feud you simply didn't understand what was going on, yet took sides nonetheless. Out of loyalty to your friend, who actually later tried to wreak havoc here and who attacks Ren at every possible turn.
Be honest: even you fell out with him once. The guy's intolerable.
Get real, you dickhead.
Farmer:
"The push for gay marriage is no longer a civil rights issues, it has become a "special privledges" issue."
To argue gay marriages constitute "special privileges" assumes gay people are somehow special.
Do you think "marriages for people with red hair" constitutes advocating "special privileges" for people with red hair?
The whole Conservative take on homosexuality is that it will somehow 'pervert' society or whatever feeble-minded idea they have about that concept. It could be argued much better that the wholesale commoditization of sexuality (mainly hetero, actually) as another profit centre has a seriously pernicious influence on society. I don't hear you bleating on about that though.
In essence, your atavistic belief is that gayness is somehow apart, special, not quite worthy etc etc. Hence all that rubbish about "cures", "special privileges" etc. Ridiculous and outdated.
Seriously, move on, will you?
Probably not. The Conservative cause against gay marriage is like I said before a manifestation of the Culture Wars and a hopeless rear guard action.
Marriage is not a special privilege.
It would not only be a "special" privledge, it would also also be a "superfluous" privledge for gays.
Marriage was instituted for the sake of legally protecting the inevitable children resulting from heterosexual unions. As there can be "none" from a homosexual union, the issue of homosexual "marriages" is a completely moot point. Period.
And Gert, as much as you might believe that sexuality has little to do with culture, nothing could be further from the truth. Culture, civilization and the rule of law are all derivative benefits that result from the restrictions societies place upon sexual practices (see previously referenced works). That the Marcusian project consists of intentionally accelerating this process of civilizational and now cultural deterioration by weakening the institution of marriage ang ensuring that males have little to no influence over the upbringing of children (fathers are the source of all that "surplus repression" that Marcuse rails against) and the eroticization of work is no surprise. And look how successful its' been. What was considered a tragedy worthy of federal "afffirmative action" in the mid 60's as reported in the Moynihan Report (30% illegitimate births in black families vs 3% for whites) is now nearly universal for people of all colors (recently announced 40% overall illegitimacy rate in the USA). Congratulations!
FJ:
"sexuality has little to do with culture, [...]"
I never said that, it has a lot to do with culture.
Gays can have children too, biologically or through adoption. It's one of the arguments in favour of gay marriage actually.
What have black illegitimate children to do with this?
Truth is that you just don't like homosexuality and are seeking hopelessly far-fetched rationalizations of your essentially irrational fears and dislikes.
sexuality has little to do with culture, [...]
"I never said that, it has a lot to do with culture."
That's not what you said yesterday...
"Gay marriage (as in 'wedding' with full legal status) is an American issue and a result of your ridiculous Kulturekampfen. Although watching the spectacle it appears to have little to do with culture as I see it. "
-----
Gays can have children too, biologically ...
Not with their homosexual partners, they can't.
---
What have black illegitimate children to do with this?
1964 Moynihan Report... helped highlight the "crises of the black family" justifying federal intervention in the form of affirmative action. At that time, the most alarming statistic was one which stated that 30% of black children were illegitimate and born out of wedlock. Today, the number is closer to 70% for blacks and 40% overall. What was a then seen by liberal Democrats as a fairly localized crises has been transformed by the "sexual revolution" into a complete rout of traditional values and the culturally critical 'nuclear family'.
Truth is that you just don't like homosexuality and are seeking hopelessly far-fetched rationalizations of your essentially irrational fears and dislikes.
The truth is, I love my children and want them to understand that the Left has duped many Americans into trading educated and cultured children for a bigger paycheck filled with insurmountable social and cultural degeneration.
Yeah, buddy, just what society needs, homosexuals adopting kids. Sorry, but until that issue, and maybe a few others, is settled firmly in the negative category, I vote no in gay marriage, and will every time the subject comes up.
FJ:
Yeah, sorry, I missed that point.
It's a beef Conservatives have about the 'breakdown of traditional family values'. They have a point but let's not forget that more traditional cultures have always been more repressive about love, marriage and sex. Now, I'm not arguing that more repressive codes are necessarily worse but they are... more repressive (can't have it both ways).
Very traditional cultures often allow practices like polygamy, arranged marriages, they're strongly patriarchical etc. Again, not necessarily 'wrong' IMHO but if one advocates freedom then there are drawbacks to be accepted that come with it.
Facilitate divorce and divorce rates go up. Which do we prefer though, freedom (with its inherent drawbacks) or a more repressive model?
Pagan:
"Yeah, buddy, just what society needs, homosexuals adopting kids."
Yeah, buddy, why not? Again, you come from mere prejudice, nothing else.
In Europe, adoption is available to homosexual couples, following the same strict guidelines as for heterosexual couples. The only people objecting to it are a few religious minorities.
Freedomnow:
For someone who deemed themselves above the fray you have an eagerness to return to it often. You protest too much...
Gert:
Side issue but I'm amazed by how many people hide behind fake IDs and odd names for fear of their views being discovered along with their identity.
"Marriage was instituted for the sake of legally protecting the inevitable children resulting from heterosexual unions. As there can be "none" from a homosexual union, the issue of homosexual "marriages" is a completely moot point. Period."
This is not why marraige was instituted, this is whay YOU think marraige was instituted but it has little to do with where and why it came about. You idea of marraige is one-dimensional and shows little understanding of what it can and should be.
You choose a definition to fit your point.
You also mis-quote people here to again, fit your point. Have you no grasp of the truth?
Pagan:
Nice to know on some issues you are still in the right-wing primitive camp.
NEWS FLASH
A senior U.S. diplomat met Iran's delegate at an international conference in the Hague on Tuesday in a sign of tentatively improving ties after decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran.
In a rare diplomatic exchange, the United States also directly gave a letter to Tehran seeking help to resolve three separate cases involving Americans, one a former FBI agent who went missing in Iran two years ago.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Iran's participation at the Hague conference on Afghanistan, which she proposed and personally had urged Tehran to attend.
"I think the fact that they came today, that they intervened today is a promising sign that there will be future cooperation," Clinton said.
She said U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, met briefly with Iranian deputy foreign minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh on the sidelines of the meeting on Afghanistan.
"It did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch," Clinton said, without specifying when their next contact would be.
Clinton said a letter was handed directly to the Iranian delegation at the conference. Usually such diplomatic exchanges are made via the Swiss, which represent U.S. interests with Iran because of the lack of diplomatic ties.
The letter asked for "humanitarian help" for three Americans she said were unable to return to the United States.
They are missing ex-FBI agent Robert Levinson and a freelance journalist, Iranian-American Roxana Saberi, who was jailed at the end of January in Iran. The third, Esha Momeni, is an Iranian-American student.
"HUMANITARIAN GESTURE"
"We ask Iran to use all its facilities to determine the whereabouts and ensure the quick and safe return of Robert Levinson, and grant the release of Roxana Saberi, and permission to travel for Roxana Saberi and Esha Momeni," said an excerpt of the letter released by the U.S. State Department.
Clinton indicated a positive response would help relations with Iran after three decades of enmity.
"These acts would certainly constitute a humanitarian gesture by the Islamic Republic of Iran in keeping with the spirit of renewal and generosity that marks the Persian new year," she told a news conference.
Fingers crossed then for a postive outcome.
Which do we prefer though, freedom (with its inherent drawbacks) or a more repressive model?
I prefer a balance or repression/ freedom which benefits people of "average" intelligence, not $250K white female lawyer chicks or $200K gay male fashion designers or heroin addicts on welfare. It's the "repression" in culture which makes it possible for people of lower intelligence to thrive... instilling an ethic that rewards effort, as opposed to avoidance.
"I prefer a balance or repression/ freedom which benefits people of "average" intelligence, not $250K white female lawyer chicks or $200K gay male fashion designers or heroin addicts on welfare."
Celebrating average? Who'd have thought it? Glad to see you're a sexist as well as a homophobe.
Keep up the prejudice.
This is not why marraige was instituted, this is whay YOU think marraige was instituted but it has little to do with where and why it came about. You idea of marriage is one-dimensional and shows little understanding of what it can and should be.
Prove it. How did marriage ceremonies originate. What was it used for. You'll soon discover it was all about protecting family bloodlines and preventing noble families from fighting over who inherited what titles/ lands/ privileges... and bastards from extra-marital affairs got NOTHING.
Celebrating average? Nope. Protecting the interests of the majority (68%) of people in the middle. If they're healthy and prospering, the rest will follow.
It depends what part of the world you're based in, it really has a broad meaning, from an informal agreement, sometime no ceremony is required in some cultures, in others much pomp and circumstance.
With some it has a religious meaning and with others none at all, sometimes even love is not required and it is a business deal sealing families together for financial or bloodline gorwith or even to bring peace.
it is clear you have a very clear idea what you consider marraige to be, which is great but you can't then transfer the personal to the global, it won't fit.
Oh and in the US, currently 40% of children are born to un-marraiged parents or a single parent. Quite a few it seems for you to kick up all this fuss.
I don't make special rules for the 2.5% of the human population that are "gay". They can go pound sand if it means putting at risk the other 97.5%.
68% of Americans are average?
Couldn't have siad it better myself.
How are you measuring average? What are the criteria of this 68% because a fair share of that 68% also aren't married so is that average also?
Everytime you try and break it down into the simple, it gets complicated, as is life and your simple attempts at making points lose ground because life is complicated and ever changing.
FJ:
You know as well as I do that the % of gay people on the planet is hard to muster, but one in ten just about does it and they don't put the 'rest of us' at risk, your thinking is too divisive and negative, full of fear.
How are you measuring average?
IQ - It's the best measure of neuroticism induced by cultural repression.
If I want to raise IQ, all I've got to do is bring back drawing and quartering (Nietzsche, "Geneology of Morals"). ;-)
Let me get this straight, averageness for you is based upon level of IQ and IQ is the criteria you would use to 'protect' this group?
Utterly bonkers, unworkable and nonsense.
I like it when you explain the details of your ideas, it makes me laugh.
These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar basic instincts and their brutal crudity: think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning (—the legend even lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty person), breaking on the wheel (the most characteristic invention and specialty of the German genius in the realm of punishment!), impaling on a stake, ripping people apart or stamping them to death with horses (“quartering”), boiling the criminal in oil or wine (still done in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), the well-loved practice of flaying (“cutting flesh off in strips”), carving flesh out of the chest, and probably covering the offender with honey and leaving him to the flies in the burning sun. With the help of such images and procedures people finally retained five or six “I will not’s” in the memory, and, so far as these precepts were concerned, they gave their word in order to live with the advantages of society—and it’s true! With the assistance of this sort of memory people finally came to “reason”!—Ah, reason, seriousness, mastery over emotions, this whole gloomy business called reflection, all these privileges and showpieces of human beings: how expensive they were! How much blood and horror is at the bottom of all “good things”! .
Utterly bonkers, unworkable and nonsense.
Yet you buy into Marxism....
*giggle giggle*
Yet another block quote...
And sorry to break it you silly giggling child but I don't buy into Marxism and never have.
Bless you, you're all over ths shop.
Yes another block quote... go ahead, refute Nietzsche. Refute d'Maistre. Better yet, refute me. All you've done so far is gasp and shake your head.
I'm not refuting you, just desire evidence and my problem with block quotes is one of style not content.
Evidence? How much more do you have to know then yourself? Gnothi Seauton. Nothing to excess. Or in the words of tyrant Hipparchus, "deceive not a friend"... ;-)
Its natural for two gay men or two lesbians to want to be together, and its even arguably natural that they are gay to begin with. I have nothing against them pursuing happiness in a relationship. However, there is nothing whatsoever natural about homosexuals having children, or raising them, and I can't support that.
Bear in mind, I'm speaking in terms of generalities here. There might well be and no doubt are specific gay couples who would be admirably suited for adopting and raising children, and I'm all for allowing that on a CASE BY CASE basis. I am not however in favor of this being a mandated right for homosexual couples in general.
Hope that clears it up.
"That the Marcusian project consists of intentionally accelerating this process of civilizational and now cultural deterioration by weakening the institution of marriage ang ensuring that males have little to no influence over the upbringing of children (fathers are the source of all that "surplus repression" that Marcuse rails against) and the eroticization of work is no surprise. And look how successful its' been. What was considered a tragedy worthy of federal "afffirmative action" in the mid 60's as reported in the Moynihan Report (30% illegitimate births in black families vs 3% for whites) is now nearly universal for people of all colors (recently announced 40% overall illegitimacy rate in the USA). Congratulations!"
What utter paranoid nonsense spouted by Farmer. Less sexual repression produces healthier individuals, not the opposite. The Scandinavian countries, long noted for their less repressive attitudes to sexuality do not have half the social problems that the US does.
Read some actual psychology and nit right-wing trash!
"Right wing trash" especially with an exclamation point is hate-speech Gambone, I'm going to report you to the Canadian government.
FJ: Marcuse tried to refute Marx, as did the "New Left," in the early days. He thought the working class was bought off, and incapable of political action. When he wrote that way, it was before the 1970s recessions. The events of 1968 France showed him wrong as well.
See this.
Want to talk about special rights. The deposed chairman of GM, is getting a 20 million dollar package.
At Freedom Now's blog, the post is about Iran policy. Obama is continuing the policy Bush started.
Pagan: Have you been to Canada before? I was surprised even about how stylishly they dress.
Larry G: The gay rights movement, is tied to the Democratic Party. When gays here have mass actions, they tend to be spontaneously organized online.
Freedom Now: The past is the past.
At Sonia's blog, I viciously attacked Beakerkin, than deleted the comment the next day. Why turn into him?
Gert: Interesting asking FJ, how far he wants to take "family values."
Daniel H-G: Who knows how many gays are in Iran, Saudi Arabia etc? The number of gays in the world is unestimatable.
I don't think gay rights are outside of human rights. Gay marriage fits that category.
Gay marriage is antedote to HIV, because it promotes monogamy.
FJ:
You're babbling, join back in when you are coherent again.
Pagan Temple:
Thanks for the clarification on your views, much needed, shame that them having children is stil a blindspot for you but each to their own on that one.
Larry:
Yeah baby!
Ren:
The figures on the number of gay men and women is hard to pina nd clearly, many, many people are gay but heavily repressed by the cultures they are part of so I do agree that getting an accurate figure is very, very hard.
1 in 10 seems fair but hard date is lacking.
I also agree that gay rights are part of human rights. Who could nto think that?
What utter paranoid nonsense spouted by Farmer. Less sexual repression produces healthier individuals, not the opposite. The Scandinavian countries, long noted for their less repressive attitudes to sexuality do not have half the social problems that the US does.
Nope. They just put the whole country on welfare and pretend that sonce there's no poverty, Scandanavian countries don't have any social problems. If you think that children raised w/o their fathers makes children "healthier" (less neurotic), you're absolutely right.
The 9,000,000 inhabitants of Sweden reported 1,250,000 offences to the authorities in Sweden (139 offences/1000 inhabitants). The number of reported crimes have increased radically since a national statistics began in 1950. This is partly attributed to a higher degree of reports, but the largest factor is the factual increase of crimes.
Just "healthy" kids, blowing off steam.
You want to see some "really" healthy kids, look at the USA's crime statistics since the liberals stopped repressing their sexuality.
Either you "repress" yourself voluntarily, or others will be forced to repress you. And "it takes a father" present starting at a young age to teach a young man of the need to control his own behavior.
"They just put the whole country on welfare and pretend that sonce there's no poverty"
Evidence of this please, otherwise it's just your prejudice and inaccurate opinion.
Where did your crime stats come from FJ? Which, may I add, are not conclusive, reported crime is something increasing the in the UK while actual crime goes down.
"You want to see some "really" healthy kids, look at the USA's crime statistics since the liberals stopped repressing their sexuality."
Again, bonkers logic worthy of a fascist.
You do realise that never, ever, ever would you be allowed near any power or influence with views as retarded as those?
FJ: Marcuse tried to refute Marx, as did the "New Left," in the early days. He thought the working class was bought off, and incapable of political action. When he wrote that way, it was before the 1970s recessions. The events of 1968 France showed him wrong as well.
He never claimed they were incapable of political action. He claimed that it was in the best interest of the workers to collaborate in their own continued "repression". And as events have shown, most of the prol's have done so and will continue to do so.
See this.
Great piece by Engels. I especially appreciated his acknowledgement of Marx's 'evolutionary' nature of sexual relations and the first natural dialectical "division of labor" between male and female centering upon child rearing.
But Engel's premise about the "unknowable direction" this evolution would take is false, and I would even propose to say that Engels knew this was false when he said it. Civilizational cycles are circular (as Plato would say) and recurring (eternally recurring, Nietzsche would say), not linearly "progressive". And this circularity is 'derived' by the heretofore unrefuted philosophical maxim that there is "generation from opposites". They don't call it "perpetual revolution" for nothing. Ixion's wheel only stopped revolving once, when Orpheus played the lyre.
Want to talk about special rights. The deposed chairman of GM, is getting a 20 million dollar package.
Indeed. Those are "special rights". But having read the Engel's piece, it should be apparent to you that "special rights" is precisely what homosexual marriage constitutes. Marriage was created so handle that "natural" dialectical division of labor between male and female for the purpose of raising children. As homosexual unions have no "natural" means of division, there can be no "right" to a contract of union based upon these de facto sexual differences that result in children, nor a "right" to raise children.
Not even G_d gave them THOSE rights.
Again, bonkers logic worthy of a fascist.
Again, no refutation, just ad hominem.
You do realise that never, ever, ever would you be allowed near any power or influence with views as retarded as those?
Who's gonna stop me?
Imagine what America's crime rate would have been w/o abortion. Phew!
I love how you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I've made regarding evidence and you plough on to new points, discarding the vast raft of them you're llsing in your wake as if they never existed.
Normally, as it makes you look bad, I drop it but just for fun:
"They just put the whole country on welfare and pretend that sonce there's no poverty"
Evidence of this please, otherwise it's just your prejudice and inaccurate opinion.
Where did your crime stats come from FJ? Which, may I add, are not conclusive, reported crime is something increasing the in the UK while actual crime goes down.
As for who is going to stop you, don't make me laugh, try and go for it and you'll see how unpopular, unworkable and fringe your ideas are. Try it, I dare you.
Renind me prick, are you for or against abortion and also, THIS IS SO ABOUT ROXANA SABERI!
YAY!
We thus have three principal forms of marriage which correspond broadly to the three principal stages of human development. For the period of savagery, group marriage; for barbarism, pairing marriage; for civilization, monogamy, supplemented by adultery and prostitution. Between pairing marriage and monogamy intervenes a period in the upper stage of barbarism when men have female slaves at their command and polygamy is practiced.
Civilization itself depends upon monogamy. Remove monogamy, and a civilization deteriorates into a mere "culture".
A brief sketch of marraige and a wee bit simplistic history in such a short quote.
As for civilisation depending upon monogomy, perhaps but that doesn't mean marraige equals monogomy.
Also, what do you mean by 'mere culture' this seems rather glib and off hand and lacking meaning so give it depth rather than shorthand facile ideas that are mere soundbites.
Also, many healthy and successful children have come out of non-monogomous relationships but usually the philanderer is the male section of the relationship, not the woman, this idea of a breedign stud hereo-king has been, mostly, celebrated but when a women spreads her seed so to speak we frown upon it.
Gender prejudice here at it's worst.
Oh well.
Post a Comment