Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my bank manager[/spoiler]
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:08 pm
Thanks. Yes.Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Thanks. Yes.Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
And the followup:Lisa Smith, from Buckinghamshire, finds sex 'repellent'
Has had three lovers, and lived with two of them
Wants to find a man with whom she can have a celibate relationship
Will adopt children if she ever decides she wants them
Vegan Lisa, 29, from Buckinghamshire, who doesn't want kids, hopes to find a man who will embrace her asexuality
Says she wants potential partner to accept cuddling as extent of intimacy
If the man of her dreams wanted sex she would say no. 'I'd feel like I was compromising myself and I would detest them for it'
Since writing for the Mail Lisa has heard from other asexuals but also had spiteful comments like: 'You can't get a man and this is how you cover it up'
If you are an example of a "wonderful father" that the court if biased against I would say things are working as intended. You are a baboon, a fool who thinks committing acts of violence against others (i.e. rape) is justifiable since they say things you disagree with. I would say that you must be young and immature but that doesn't excuse the idiocy you have put to text.somedumbguy wrote:I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.nippletwister wrote:somedumbguy wrote:Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.16bitheretic wrote:Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.
Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.
Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.
Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.
Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view so we thought we'd give it a miss. Hugely regret it! I listened to the album on repeat for like two months straight.Lsuoma wrote:Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.rocko2466 wrote:I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
These seats are reserved for the A✠mental-cripples who claim to be blind-'enhanced'.rocko2466 wrote:I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view...
Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بÙرقع‎
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Yes, I imagine that they would be.rayshul wrote:Hot.Michael K Gray wrote:Antacid بÙرقع‎
And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
This is, I think, a start:comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#CanadaIn December 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Muslim women must remove niqabs in some cases when testifying in court.
Whay SDG posted was, in my opinion, the first time anyone here has posted anything even close to the sort of rape threats that the FTB crowd claim is a constant feature of this place.Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:
a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
And this is probably the reason why the whole of humanity is not doomed yet.Michael K Gray wrote:For the few animal lovers¹ amongst us:
Thirsty koala follows walker, drinks three bottles of water
Dateline, mid-summer, South Australia, (a bit up the road from here):
A THIRSTY koala has made the rare move of climbing down a tree before following a walker along suburban roads, drinking three bottles of water over an hour.
But that was not enough.Woo-Hyang Sun wrote:"I was walking near the Black Hill Conservation Park entrance (when) my husband spotted a koala in a tree," Mrs Sun said.
"We took some photos, and initially the koala looked scared.
"She kept looking at me and looked like she wanted something, so I poured some water in my palm, and the koala drank it at once.
As the temperature began to rise, the thirsty koala became even more ambitious.â‹®After sustaining long eye contact with Mrs Sun's husband for several minutes, the koala succumbed to the prospect of a cool drink of water and climbed down from the tree, not at all phased by her suburban surroundings.
Not only did the koala hit the streets of Athelstone for a leisurely stroll, it almost threatened to get behind the wheel of Mrs Sun's car.
"When I opened the car door, she was poking her head to look inside my car, I guess for more water?," she said.Read the whole story with more cute piccies at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/thirsty-k ... s-of-water"After she finished the whole bottle, she was waving her hand, I guess, for more water.
"She followed me for an hour and ended up drinking three bottles altogether - definitely the friendliest koala I've ever seen."
_________________________
¹ Punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine
Michael K Gray wrote:Too true. Nearly a "deepity"bhoytony wrote:There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.
And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:Dick Strawkins wrote:<snip>Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.
There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:
1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.
Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:
<snip>
Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
<snip>
Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.
In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).DeepInsideYourMind wrote:And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_coveringcomslave wrote:The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Riiight-on there brother Michael!Michael K Gray wrote:ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!comslave wrote:rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!
The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!
We love Big PZ!
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg
I only JUST took you off "ignore" to find that, true to form, you are still your vapidly humour-free contrarian self.Steersman wrote:And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!
That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
I have to ask: did you mean this comment to be sarcastic, or did you fall off the crib in your infancy?ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:That's not a shaving accident, unless the woman (? Proof of gender?) has Parkinson's.rocko2466 wrote:
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
It's clearly self harm, either real or staged: check out the multiple slashes across the heel. Nice idea if you're into that kind of thing: gets nice chafed by shoes, but hidden by trousers, so provides an all-day reminder of how worthless you are while remaining hidden from the public.
I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Cue Bhoytony to hypocritically observe that he doesn't give a tinker's toss about your opinion, yet bothers to post an intense selfish rant against it...Dick Strawkins wrote:I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat†of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens�
Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose†and all that ….
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?
Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?Michael K Gray wrote:That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
It's the kind of thread Notung should approve of. No profanity, no gratuitous insults, "lively" but hardly acrimonious debate. I see at least one refugee from The Borg found there way there which, AFAIAC, is a still win for the good guys. The 'Pit isn't for everyone, but we're still here. And what would The Borg do for an enemy if we weren't? (That's not really a serious question - they can invent them out of thin air.)didymos wrote:It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.
I couldn't agree more.Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
Yeah, that sucks. I deeply, deeply and most humbly apologise. :oops:Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
Seconded.decius wrote:I couldn't agree more.Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
I didn't see SDG's original flameout (and don't wish to, but I'll take the Big L's word for it), but I'm going to strongly disagree with all of his violent phantasies.Dick Strawkins wrote:OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
Mathews was lucky. The original offence was a traffic one (which stood), but then "someone" with their face covered made a claim that the traffic Police had made her remove her covering and was therefore a racist. That complaint was found to be untrue and she was sentenced to a fine and six months porridge. This was appealed and she got off the false complaint charge, but had to pay her costs. The judge refused those costs (and they were more than court costs) because he thought another judge might reasonably have convicted her! The State government immediately extended Police and others powers to demand removal of face coverings for ID purposes, so it likely won't happen again. There have since been huge protests by helmeted "youths" outside the Church of Laterday Motorcycle Couriers.clownshoe wrote:Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?Michael K Gray wrote:That is basically not true.rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.
:lol:Michael K Gray wrote:Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"
I did an analysis of the page of hate a few weeks ago:c) Rebecca's page of hate, as you correctly identify, has no examples of real threats, just hate speech, trolling, abuse, etc
None of mine did either...:(Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:
If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.decius wrote:A friend of mine needs some Pit help. She's a very talented singer, whose career will immensely benefit if her advantage in this poll could be restored.
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.
Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.
http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.[/quote]Pitchguest wrote: http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
Indeed, she is. However, the fact that Della Mae has only gotten 16 votes in that poll is an absolute crime.decius wrote: Try this sung tribute to her grandma. She's good.
I still think this is the best one yet:Apples wrote:And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
The death penalty can be contextualized as the state or society killing in self defense. Morally I have no problem with that, though I am against capital punishment only because the justice system(at least in my country)is so seriously flawed that I wouldn't trust it to accurately determine guilt.DeepInsideYourMind wrote:America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?16bitheretic wrote:Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)
Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.
It's too late!windy wrote:So, I'm not sure what happened, but apparently SDG posted something that crossed a line. Guys, don't do that! (for realz this time)
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
I think of it every time PZ climbs on a pair of soapboxes to say "We're winning - there are no American tanks in Baghdad" or nips at the heels of another skeptic or public figure who dwarfs him in influence/integrity.Gumby wrote:I still think this is the best one yet:Apples wrote:And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg
