They can fantasise about killing whoever they want and still be the victims.
Pullman's a loudmouth with an obvious chip on his shoulder when it comes to better known and better venerated children's authors. He would probably oppose the censorship of Dahl's books (his own books were censored in America some years ago) if pressed on his glibness, but he's a loudmouth and therefore inconsistent so I don't know.
Not French but originally French language: The Adventures of Tintin.
They just want to be left alone, they always say.
Reading through the list of the rest of the rules included in the legislation makes funny reading when you compare them.
You CAN NO longer keep a dog confined for any period of time in a car. But you CAN have sex with said dog on the backseat/front seat/on the roof/in the trunk/on the bonnet of the car.
You CANNOT make your pet perform any tricks for an audience if it causes them any "anxiety". You CAN use that same pet as a masturbatory aid in the privacy of your own home however.
I've also just found out that bestiality is still legal in Finland and West Virginia.
And while you're at that just imagine the glee that your neighbours would be feeling as they team up with the evil colonisers to wipe out your murderous imagined Aztec/Lakota/Zulu ass!
I genuinely thought it was a Babylon Bee article from the headline.
This is the view of someone who thinks everything revolves around him. Anonymous people are rude to him online, so "mandated speech" (opposition to which first made him famous) and other limits on expression around the world suddenly stop existing. People have had knocks on their door for far less offensive things than calling someone a "sadistic Machiavellian psychopath" - in the UK recently it was "muppet" (offline), in Germany it was "dick". It doesn't even have to be a direct insult. Satire can get you unwanted attention too. Even criticism.
If he believes what he said, then he is a sadistic Machiavellian psychopathic narcissist.
I understand, medical decisions should always be your own or your parents. You can still blame them for making the wrong decision. Even though court cases like this don't outrage me by itself, a baby's life might be saved and they are not demonising the parents, I know what precedent they can set.
Does the fact that New Zealand doesn't screen for vaccinated blood, the baby needs surgery now, "guardianship" is only temporary for the operation, and the parents are still going to be treated as such for everything else (or so they say) change anyone's mind? This is a very specific context. What would be the alternative?
Ahhh, a bad faith both-sides argument....One side thinks all queer people are predators and a threat to kids. The other side thinks queer people (including drag queens) should be allowed and encouraged to do something that nobody would bat an eye if a straight person did (hosting a storytime for kids at a local business). False equivalence is false.
Nobody batting an eyelid at Kirk Cameron
--
reddit bot:
Scanning
Initiate new subroutine (Christians bad) contradicting everything previously said
Predictable. The culture war is just like any other, you fight to win.
We adopted the wheel because of globalization too, it's not ironic. We talking about different things here: Post-WW2 globohomo. Buildings and everything else suitably reflect the ugliness of our, wherever you live, new masters, now with more reach than ever before.
Legal experts say neither of those are apt analogies. While it’s illegal to discriminate against someone because of their race or religion, the restaurant’s refusal had to do with the group’s actions, said Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas. “It’s about the overall positions and policies the group has taken — it’s not about Christian vs. non-Christian,” she said. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, D.C., Seattle and the Virgin Islands specifically protect people from being refused service because of their political affiliation or ideology.
Sepper, the legal "expert" [sic], they cite is an ideological warrior who's argued that bakers etc. should not be allowed to refuse a service to gays, and that provisions to allow this (expanding conscientious objection) would result in "anarchy". She actually used that word. She's clearly not an historian. She makes a distinction between actions and beliefs only when it fits. This Christian group was refused service due to their "overall positions" aka "actions". Gay marriage though, oh that's different, that's a "status".
What if a Christian company was to go on an intel-gathering mission on the seemingly innocuous gay couple looking to use their services? Past marching in a gay pride event? That's not enough Sepper would probably say. Promoting drag events? Where's the harm in that? There's always an excuse for 'my side'.
The world is a small place to a leftist, so small it fits neatly into their skull. Only emotions, not feelings - feelings have depth, matter. Applying those shallow emotions to every gay couple theoretically rejected by a baker or a photographer is how they create an illusion of depth. Any arguments that society does not benefit as a whole from this permissiveness are too abstract regardless of evidence. And doing away with any pretence of compromise and stating that you want the society that they have corrupted over 6 decades to benefit them more than us to be flipped, now you're dangerous. The slippery slope doesn't exist. But if you support an consolidation/expansion of legal protections for the "deplorables" in society, now it does. Then gays will never be allowed to have wedding cakes ever again, and every sentence uttered by a white man will end in the word "nigger".
How could anyone deny that this is a culture war?
Noone but the kooks and immunocompromised wear them in the glorified city that I live in. People were glad to be rid of them.
It's still cool to emulate the West, even if it means cutting your dicks off.
The over-the-touchline ball of God. Very fitting!
Robert Reich pushed through NAFTA, which "drove off" 100,000s of real jobs. Many of these were replaced in time by the worthless ones Elon Musk is now cutting. He regretted it years later, boohoo, he's the quintessential virtue signaller.
They're stupid. They love rubbing it into the faces of the hoi polloi how much better they think they are. They understand on a primitive level that moralizing and empty gestures are a good deflector of criticism, like asset strippers and outsourcers who are also "philanthropists". They "know" (primitively, it's all primitive) that they're paid too much. They do what they are told.
Unless you have serious alcohol and drug problems, schizophrenia, and an extremely impulsive personality - no, you won't. The instinct to self-preservation is incredibly strong. I know!
So you're saying that she is just a clown and inadequate instead? Sorry. It's great when they give you such easy ammunition to mock them. As a mark of honour for all she has done for "men's rights", I hope her gravestone will read:
Cathy Newman
1959 - 20xx
"So you're saying she's dead now?"
They can never accept that it is just a cold, selfish decision. Despite having the perfect slogan for that - "My body, my choice" - they still desperately try to justify it morally on the basis of absurd scenarios that make up no more than 0.001% of cases.
So you're saying that the interview was a success for Peterson because she is a slightly-less-than-blithering retard?
Then I'm happy for her, and hope she gets the once-in-a-lifetime experience of having her severed head thrown down the temple steps.
I agree with this line of thinking. Sex is vaginal sex, anything else is a "sex act" or any other euphemism. "Gender" should not be asked for on answer forms unless that is specifically what they are researching, only "sex" should. And your first name is your "Christian name" (I don't know if this was a thing outside of the UK). Bring it all back!