Monday, February 22, 2016

Looky here

According to the Infallible Magisterium of the New York Times, it is completely normal for adults to want to have genetic ties with the children they raise, but if you dare say that it is also completely normal for children to desire a biological connection with their parents, you’re immediately branded as a vile bigot, unfit for civilized society. How this is NOT a glaring and blatant example of hypocrisy and a rank double standard, I really have no clue whatsoever.

But, then, again I am a benighted bigot, who just cannot accept Public Reason's value of equality, and Public Reason’s value of equality dictates that same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equal in every way that matters. Therefore, a child's desire to have a biological connection with his parents cannot matter because if it did, that would mean that opposite-sex couples are in principle superior to same-sex couples. But that's just vile, inhuman heterosexist bigotry. 

Therefore, to maintain Public Reason's value of equality, one must deny any significance to a child's desire for a biological connection with his parents while at the same time asserting that it is normal for same-sex couples to desire a biological connection with the children they raise. After all, opposite-sex couples desire and normally have genetic ties with their children.  Therefore, equality demands that it is normal for same-sex couples to desire and have a biological connection with the children they raise as well.  That's the logic of equality, which apparently trumps rudimentary human biology. 

How this is not a blatant example of special pleading or even post hoc propter hoc reasoning, I have no clue at all. But, again, I am a benighted, hateful bigot, impervious to Public Reason and, therefore, should be cast out into the Outer Darkness.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Another Installment of Modern Love

Person:  Hey, Gorgeous, may I buy you a drink.

Person 2:  Oh, hey, you seem nice and all, but I swing for the other team.  I'm a Lesbian.

Person:  I'm a Lesbian, too.  Just non-op, and one who likes to dress very butch.  You're not transphobic, are you?

Person 2:  No, not at all.  What can I do to affirm your gender identity?

Person:  You want to test-drive my all-natural strap-on?

Person 2:  Join me in the Lady's Room?

Person:  Yes, it's time to christen our progressive city's progressive new bathroom ordinance.

Person 2:  Indeed.

Friday, February 19, 2016

This is Funny

Random Facebook Status Update by a Random Feminist:
I need feminism because 90% of CEOs are men.
Random Wag: How do you know they are men? Are you referring to them as men based on your own preconceived notion of what a man is?

Random Feminist: They are men because they look and act like men. What kind of question is that?

Random Wag: Isn’t it transphobic to assume that just because someone looks like a man, he is a man?

Random Feminist: Go fuck yourself.

Facebook is evil.

That's why I left it.  Again.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Newsflash

Court rules that it is invidious and, therefore, unlawful discrimination for the Capitalist not to sell the rope by which he will be hung.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Conundrum du jour

Is there any difference at all between a cisgender straight man and a pre-op transgender gay woman?`

I'm a pre-op transgender Lesbian, who likes to don very butch apparel.

More "equality" now!

I changed my mind. I'm all for "equality" between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, and I want more of it. If a gay man can enjoy a one-night stand without any fear of a paternity suit, then, dammit, I, as a straight man, should be able to do the same. The hallowed dictates of "equality" demand it!

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Pet Peeve

"Belie" means "give the lie to", NOT reveal. So, do not use "belie" when you want to mean reveal or you will wind up saying the exact opposite of what you mean. For instance, if you wish to say that a politician's bombast reveals his ignorance, then say just that. Do not say, "The politician's bombast belies his ignorance." That means that his bombast actually vitiates or contradicts his reputation for ignorance and thereby gives "bombast" a positive meaning that it really does not have. The misuse of "belie" does nothing but belie your pretension to be a precise practitioner of the English Language. Got that? Good.

Pace Don McLean...

...the Day the Music Died was the second of Dezember, 1928.

Was will das Weib?

Will someone, PLEASE, explain to me why young women swoon for that crass, sleazy, dirty old man and wife beater, Charles Bukowski?

Die Deutschen kennen doch Humor

"The eye of the writer should be human and unbribable. You don't have to play Blindman's Bluff. There are rose, blue, and black spectacles--they color reality as needed. Rose-colored spectacles fetch a high price, they are the most beloved, and the possibilities for bribery abound. But even black spectacles are now and and again in demand, and when the demand is there, then even black will pay handsomely. But we want to see things as they are with a human eye, which is normally not entirely dry or completely wet but is instead moist, and we do well to remember that the Latin word for moistness is Humor."
                                --Heinrich B├Âll,  "Bekenntnis zur Tr├╝mmerliteratur"

Catholic School and Good Catholic Values

About a decade ago or so there were radio spots in my area trumpeting the advantages of Catholic Schools. The announcer would mention a person who has enjoyed worldly success like Joe Garagialo or Mary Higgins Clark and then ask, "And why has he [or she] been so successful?" You could almost hear a drumroll. "Because he [or she] went to Catholic Schools where he learned good Catholic Values." I really wanted to do some radio spots of my own which would have gone something like this: "Sir Thomas More was the most respected man in England. He had it all, a loving family, wealth, a brilliant writing career, and political power. And he gave it all away to have his head chopped off. Why? Because he went to Catholic Schools where he learned good Catholic Values." Or this: "Jeanne la Pucelle was burned at the stake. Why? Because she went to Catholic Schools where she learned good Catholic Values." You get the idea.

Unfortunately, I did not have enough money to purchase such radio spots.  I've not had enough worldly success.  I went to Catholic School as well but guess that I did not learn enough of those good Catholic Values.  I am going to hell.