Sunday, October 7, 2007

New Internet F***wad Alert

I have been having some "interesting" discussions yet again with the Opine Idiots. And each time I believe I have made a breakthrough with one of the contributors over there, this power-trip loser Op-Ed deletes my comments, accusing me of profanity and personal attacks. I think his wittle feelings are hurt that I won't engage him in his idiot comments: (here's an example, mine are in bold that he selectively cut and pasted, per his usual routine of selective editing)

"Jane: Marriages are no longer seen as *only* a baby-making institution'

Op-Ed: No, but marriages are still seen as the *only* (endorsed) baby-making institution.

From the mid-20th century on, husbands and wives were more than just the above... they were lovers, friends, and companions

Op-Ed: That romance is only a recent discovery of the last century or so is a standard anti-marriage talking point. This falsehood is exposed with just two words: "Romeo" and "Juliet." Do you want to see how far back the notion of romantic marriage really goes?

I also don't think that we should be in the business of telling people to abide by our own moral standards.

Op-Ed: We tell people to abide by our moral standards all the time. Murder, for instance. Basically, any practice contrary to the existence of an orderly society is regularly denounced and discouraged.

others shouldn't (in my opinion) be able to tell women that they can't freely have sex with whatever man they want to now that birth control is an option.

Op-Ed: Then you object to marriage entirely. Marriage precisely says women (and men) "can't freely have sex with whatever man (or woman) they want to."But at least you have gotten around to answering half of the question I asked you earlier in this conversation:"Are you saying that society is not concerned with responsible procreation, or that it should not be. If it is, then through what institution does it pursue that interest? If it should not, then what should the purpose of marriage be?"From your statement, above, I take it your answer is that society should not be concerned with responsible procreation, presumably because birth control and abortion have solved the problem of illegitimacy over the last 30 some years.Now answer the second part of that question: What should be the new purpose of marriage? If it's simply an outdated and unnecessary institution, you should argue to eliminate it, not make it more "inclusive."

*I will now answer his questions on my terms to avoid being unfairly portrayed as one who can only argue by resorting to personal attacks every time I reach a new level of understanding with someone.

(a.) because marriages are (in Op-Ed's eyes) seen as the only baby-making institutions (arguable, because this leaves out single parents who are also protected by certain laws) does not mean we must then exclude other types of relationships from being deemed "marriages." Like sterile couples, post-menopausal women, people who intend to never have children, etc. It's very simple logically, surely Op-Ed can understand this. Ugh. Anyone else sick of beating this dead old horse? I sure am.

(b.) I never claimed that romance was new. If that is what you surmise from what I said, then you are either trying to mischaracterize my argument, or you need a rudimentary lesson in critical reading. I do think it's the former. For it's much easier to counter a fake argument that you, not your opposition, makes up.

I said the concept of marrying solely for romance is relatively new in Western Society (and still doesn't happen much in other societies). Romance has probably existed for centuries upon centuries. Leave it to religion, authoritarianism, wealth, hierarchy, and greed that got in the way of "true love." My point, which you have thus far completely ignored, is that people in the U.S. now usually marry for romantic love. And since gays and lesbians share romantic love with their partners they should be able to have the legal rights of marriage, as well. As Billie Jean said, "Fair's fair." (random shout-out to Helen Slater, btw)


(c)As far as not being in the practice of holding others to our moral standards, I think there are some inherent moral standards that are absolute (murder is wrong) and those that are relative. I have already said that I most closely relate to libertarianism, where others are free to act as they will so long as they aren't causing harm to another. I feel that you most closely resemble an authoritarian, in that you (dangerously) try to tell everyone to abide by your own set of moral standards: heterosexual families are the only acceptable family. To quote my girlfriend's social work book, that she generously lent me, "Such a person highly values conventional behavior and feels threatened by unconvential behavior of others. In order to reduce this threat, such a person labels unconventional people as being immature, inferior, or degenerate, and therefore avoids any need to question his or her own beliefs and values. The authoritarian personality views members of minority groups as being unconventional, degrades them, and tends to express authoritarianism through prejudice and discrimination" (from "Understanding Human Behavior and the Social Environment," Zastrow, 2007). Op-Ed, I urge you to examine your own beliefs and see how fair you think you have been to gays and lesbians.

See how it's not fun to be told what to do? But remember in the words of your friend Jose, I do love you. I just hate your sin.

(d) as for the rest, you have grossly taken my statement out of context. You never fail to surprise me with what you claim I say. I was replying to Renee's post where she implied that birth control and abortion have led women to allow themselves to be further demoralized by men. And I was replying to her specific question. I do NOT believe that anyone can tell a woman, or a man, who they can or can't sleep with. So long as they aren't harming anyone. Within the context of a marriage, then someone would be harmed, wouldn't they? Got it?
So no. I don't object to marriage at all. Otherwise why would I think gays and lesbians should be able to get married?

That would be silly.

See how logical I can be when you aren't censoring me and selectively (mis)quoting me? It all makes sense when you put it together.

Op-Ed, it's sad how hateful you are. And how inferior you must feel deep down to go about your stupid power-trip. I like to think that most people are inherently good...but sometimes I start to wonder.

UPDATE:

as if on cue, enter the epitome of authoritarian, Culturrrrrrologist, everybody!!! The expert we "should sit and take notes on" per his other Opine Idiots.

the man who says things like:

"Jane Know: Gay couples are very similar to straight couples in nearly every aspect."

Culturologist: Dead people are very similar to living people in nearly every aspect too. But there's one really important way in which they differ.I'll hasten to add that I'm not comparing homosexuals to dead people. The logical weakness of the construction is what I'm getting at, not any parallel there."

and

"As for medical evidence, there's a good deal of that showing that homosexual men suffer risks for STDs and other health hazards well above and beyond those that non-heterosexual men face. This topic has been discussed here before. People who engage in anal intercourse open themselves to all sorts of additional health hazards--this has something to do with the actual primary function of the anus, which doesn't involve shoving objects up it over and over again.Those mundane facts of the human body don't go away just because some people decide they want to express their romantic attractions to others by doing such things."

and

"There's also a good deal of evidence challenging the image you are trying to construct of the 'monogamous homosexual man.' All the data suggest that the average homosexual man has at least several times as many sexual partners as the average heterosexual man. Even people like Jonathan Rauch realize they can't deny this fact--although they work themselves into a sweat trying to shrink the margin as much as they can. It seems pretty clear that this subculture has a strongly entrenched element of promiscuity and there's little reason to believe that allowing them to 'marry' will change that."

This guy is ridiculous. His blog "Being a Father," is loaded with pictures of his (adorable) daughter, yet nearly every article he writes in it is anti-gay and not really about "being a father" at all. It's as if he thinks that because he is a good father, his homobigot speech is somehow more valid. Talk about using children as commodities...

I bet his University is proud to have such a nice, open-minded fellow. Surely, he has the conviction to stand behind his strong personal beliefs.

23 comments:

Fannie said...

Wow.

For someone who studies society for a living, Teh Culturolgist is remarkably adept at believing and promoting stereotypes about groups of people. And also remarkably fixated on anal sex.

I agree that his fathering blog has less to do with being a father and more to do with ripping gay people, and he uses his position as a father to lend authority to his anti-gay beliefs. It's sad.

Most of the Opine Idiots are cowards who don't even have real blogger profiles or write anything other than anti-gay articles, at least substantially. It must feel safe to sit behind that lonely computer screen and share nothing to the world but hate.

And seriously, Jane, don't even bother with Op-Ed. It wouldn't be worth it even if you got paid. I realize he jumps in with his idiotic authoritarian comments when you are in a conversation with someone else, but it's best to ignore him.

Rachel M. said...

DEAR CULTUROLOGIST AND OPINE IDIOTS:

OH. BOY. I'd like to start by saying, in my experience; DEAD PEOPLE are non-functioning, non-contributing members of society. Gay people are the OPPOSITE. Daddy-dearest should NOT attack someone else’s logic when yours is so poor. Nice try with slipping the "..."I'm not comparing homosexuals to dead people" thing in there. Right. Then don't be so damn lazy and come up with a less horrific analogy, professor. Wouldn’t want to lose your "students," would you?

M'kay. Moving on...seriously? Did you really just spend time talking about butt-sex and then try to act like only gay men participate in such a practice? C'mon. NEXT! 1952 called they want their sodomy laws back. I've been to your sites. I’ve read your charming family man tales and your bios. Now if I were as shitty as some of your opine buddies I’d pretend to know you and say something like, “I suspect you resent mommy a little? Maybe it’s her fault daddy left? Maybe she was a bit too dominant and pushy? Maybe you thought you’d show her?! You’d get funky and join a band and study the humanities! NO! BETTER! You’ll start your own family and it’ll be down right functional! Now, since you have an image in your mind of what a “functional” family is you’d better find someone who won’t get in the way of that! For starter’s she can’t be ANYTHING like mom. She’s gotta be a pushover! Yeah! That’ll do it! Now, who’d be willing enough to let an average looking man with average intelligence call all the shots? OH! I KNOW! Someone who’d do ANYTHING to legally live in America! AN IMMIGRANT! That’ll be easy to find! Well, swell. Looks like you’ve got it all worked out. Plus you can play the, “”look how cute my baby is, and look how much she and I connect and love each other!”” card. Works every time when trying to prove you’re a stand up guy.” I mean, I guess I COULD say that stuff, but I’d NEVER presume to know a stranger. Look, my point on this is, just ask her. If you resent that fact that people who aren’t even married can talk their partners into having butt- sex and you’re afraid you can’t…well, you never know if you never try. And if at first you don’t succeed, bully her by telling her “in America, men are right and women do what they say. Then take a victory bike ride around your block with your baby.

See, you may have a point somewhere buried deep within your writing (doubt it), but you’re so rude and offensive that it’s hard to find. Perhaps it’s “The logical weakness of the construction is what I'm getting at.” Little man, I fear you’d pee your sensible cargo pants if challenged IN PERSON by a smart, collected, intelligent (dare I regress to the days of Masons and say) powerful, woman. You’ll disagree. I know. Only one way to settle that…

Jane Know said...

Fannie,
Yep. In the end, it looks like you were right in the first place. Some heterosexuals are actually just obsessed with anal sex (http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2007/08/entertaining-marriage-defense-blog-of_21.html).

Fannie said...

I know. Like I said a long time ago.

Could've saved us a lot of time....

Fannie said...

Does anyone else notice that Op-Ed never has anything of substance to add to a commentary other than his prickishness, dishonesty, and distortions?

He is a little man utterly lacking good humor.

Since I don't know anything about him, I won't presume to think he's some overweight balding middle-aged guy using his sticky, chubby fingers to peck out his latest dickwad comment while hiding behind a non-existent blogger profile and therefore anonymous identity.

I guess I COULD say that, but I too won't presume to know a stranger.

Rachel M. said...

Fannie,
How mature of you. It’s poor form to assume you know a stranger. You’ve handled yourself well…again. You are a dignified human being and it shows.

Jane Know said...

Well that wouldn't be fair to judge them based on their comments on an anonymous internet blog. It's not them I hate after all. It's their vile, depraved, immoral, fuckwad behaviors. I am merely trying to *help* them see their disgusing, destructive actions and seek help for them. I urge them all to seriously consider what I've written.

The Culturologist said...

"Little man, I fear you’d pee your sensible cargo pants if challenged IN PERSON by a smart, collected, intelligent (dare I regress to the days of Masons and say) powerful, woman. You’ll disagree. I know. Only one way to settle that…"

Yeah, why don't you drop by during office hours some day, Rachel? Of course, I don't know you from Adam, since you're anonymous and all (but really BRAVE nonetheless, huh?). Just introduce yourself as "the classless anonymous psycho from Jane Know's blog" and I'll figure it out.

But somehow, I doubt I'll see you. IN fact, I doubt I'll ever even know who you really are. Partially because you're an anonymous internet coward who prefers hiding. Partially because you just don't matter. You're nothing and nobody. You have no effect on anything that matters.

And that's probably what makes you so angry and unhappy. Too bad for you.

Jane Know said...

"You're nothing and nobody. You have no effect on anything that matters."

And I presume that you, instead, are Someone in this big bad evil world, Culturologist? That You have major effects on Things That Matter: namely, private issues of consensual sex between 2 adults.

Because YOU have no idea who Rachel M. is doesn't mean she is a nothing or a nobody. That is a rather "micro" argument if I do say so, myself.

Jane Know said...

Rachel, Culturologist has just accused you of attacking his WIFE(http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/10/yet-another-common-everyday-elision.html#comment-7977698287363729519): "Any of you who believe Jane Know has somehow "changed" should take a look at her blog, where she is personally attacking people here in the vilest terms. Indeed, other people there are even attacking my WIFE."

wahwahwahwah! i tink you hurt 'is wittle feewings too when you said this:

"For starter’s she can’t be ANYTHING like mom. She’s gotta be a pushover! Yeah! That’ll do it! Now, who’d be willing enough to let an average looking man with average intelligence call all the shots? OH! I KNOW! Someone who’d do ANYTHING to legally live in America! AN IMMIGRANT!"

I guess he doesn't get that you're mocking him... and it is not at all an attack on his wife.

Renee's response is even better, where she mentions people doing the same thing to her once when she was 22 weeks pregnant. "And they didn't even care!"

Maybe someone sitting in a glass house of pregnancy shouldn't throw stones...

Or something.

Fannie said...

The incident I think Renee is referring to:

http://thinkingmeat.net/2007/04/07/dont-ask-renee/

Rachel M. said...

Culturologist,
How sharp of you to pick up on the fact that I’m showing you what it’s like to have your family and lifestyle attacked by a total stranger. Once again, you’ve impressed me. Second, way to pretend you know what’s going on, but again you’re off the mark. I’d love to have a blog, but when mentioning it in a professional setting; I was advised to refrain from hosting a political blog at this stage in the game. Sometimes it is difficult for some to realize my opinions are my own, and not necessarily always that of the institution with whom I am affiliated. And finally, you’re on. You and I live very far apart, but I’ll certainly stop by at my earliest convenience. I’ve been invited by you, so I trust that won’t be an issue. And that will be the very moment when you can tell me to my face that you are better than me.

p.s. stop giving Jane credit for my insults to you and your family. Is nothing sacred!?

Jane Know said...

Haha, nice find, Fannie! Per his usual routine, On Lawn is up to his usual dishonesty, nonsensical statements and made-up words and "arguments," and Op-Ed is there to chime in every once in awhile with nothing to offer but one-liners and selective out of context quotes of his opposition.
And they talk about Renee's obsession with flowery language/pseudoscience speak.

Did she really say her marriage was neutered?

It's like a tag-team gang bang.

The Culturologist said...

T 9:30-10:30 and W 3-4.

Understand that if you come into my place of work talking as you talk here, I'll show you the door very quickly.

And I'll be hoping at least a little bit that you don't want to leave on your own, so I can have somebody physically remove you.

Who knows? Maybe we'll even get to hear you try out your version of "Don't taze me, bro!"

Rachel M. said...

Oh no, "friend." I'll be a perfect lady. And as frustrating I might find your position in life to be, you may find mine to be three-fold. But I do look forward to you seeing me in person and telling me I am no one and don't count. I suppose some of us find familial responsibly reason enough to be discrete in an open forum in regard to identifying themselves, but one on one we'll have a gay ol' time playing "show me yours and I’ll show you mine" (figuratively, of course). None of us are EVER completely immune, are we? I trust you are as "in the know" as I am? That being said, it's all about whom you are and who you know, eh? God Bless America, professor. And again, make sure you don’t let Jane get anymore credit for what I say.

The Culturologist said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jane Know said...

See-ya. Definitely wouldn't wanna be-ya.

The Culturologist said...

Even if you wanted to be me, Jane, the fact that you don't yet walk upright or use fire might get in the way.

Jane Know said...

mkay. just keep telling yourself that, Loser.

your schtick is so old.

Rachel M. said...

Don't you think it might be a waste of time to continue to insult Jane’s intelligence when you've never actually met her and know very little about her credentials? I don't see how it validates your argument. As I attempted to show before (but you instead DELIBERATELY tried to pretend you didn't get it and acted like I was going after your wife) it's very hard to find someone's logic in a haystack of unfounded insults. All I can deduce is that A) Jane works in healthcare. B) She's a lesbian. C) She holds some sort of degree(s) in higher education. And D) she's funny.

Fannie said...

His schtick is to, using his professor card, automatically denigrate his opponents' intelligence and humanity even though he knows nothing about their credentials, experience, or real-life personalities.

Jane Know said...

"His schtick is to, using his professor card, automatically denigrate his opponents' intelligence and humanity even though he knows nothing about their credentials, experience, or real-life personalities"

Or, translated into my language: "ooga booga booga dooga."

That's better. Now I understand.

Fannie, you forgot the part about his Opine friends masturbating his keen intelligence. THAT was classic. It's like a giant polygamist orgy over there.

Fannie said...

Actually... it's like a metaphorical homosexual cyber orgy.