JK Rowling vs. History

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

The salient question might be, given that we all have options, a conscience and responsibility, why don't we invariably choose the good? Who, but an evil creature, would prefer evil to good?

Seems to me: there's been a psyop goin' on since before man fell outta the trees.

How truly organized this psyop is (and who or what is ultimately responsible for this psyop), I can't say, but there's always someone around to pound the table and hammer home that man is less. For example, I just finished readin' a lil piece wherein it is claimed the circuit for spirituality has been located in the human brain. The circuit (their word, not mine). Man is a machine; spirituality is a machine bit, is the underlyin' message

Psyops.

Why don't we all invariably choose the good? Cuz man has been set against himself from the beginning. His conscience sez no as his (hijacked) culture sez yes. The result is craziness. Man's innate guide thru madness is overwhelmed and declared a circuit. Man is reduced, takes to all fours, some howlin' at the moon and cravin' blood, others bleatin' and eatin' grass.

So: no, man is not flawed. He is *beset. He is infected.

Who, but an evil creature, would prefer evil to good?

And still: the war does not go well for the enemy (hence the desperation of its proxies). That boot was supposed to be on that face decades ago. It's not. Too many still **stand.




*one avenue is thru language. Persist in redefinin' everything and, for example, theft can be made attractive, patriotic even. **But not so consistently or so deeply as to do away with penalty for noncompliance. Some men still recognize taxation for what it is and they must be forced (to pony up or to be clever in their refusal).
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?
If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
Wow. You are awfully touchy today.
Don't mind him, Gary. He's just pissed cuz he don't like bein' called out.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pm

If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
Wow. You are awfully touchy today.
Don't mind him, Gary. He's just pissed cuz he don't like bein' called out.
Well, I don't think I was calling anyone out on anything. Just expressing my views on things. Like I say, I'll call people by whatever title they want so long as it's not something humiliating like "your lordship." However, trying to keep straight which men want to be referred to as "her" and which women want to be referred to as "him" might get tricky sometimes. I mean, if a male dresses pretty convincingly as a female or vice versa, then there probably won't be too much confusion over preferred pronouns. I would just hope they are upfront about their gender confusion before someone of the same sex asks them out and invests time in courtship with them. But who knows how that works these days.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?
If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
It's none of your beeswax.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Sculptor »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:46 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/jk-ro ... hp&pc=U531

Social media gets ugly once again.

I think transsexuality is largely frowned upon by many as not being appropriate, as amounting to some sort of deviation from the preferred or natural axis of development of a human being or something. I mean, when I think of someone who is transexual I think of someone with some sort of psychological flaw of some kind. I don't think of it as the way a human being should normally develop psychologically. But I suppose I would be viewed as being a bigot by some for believing that. I mean, is there not such a thing as an appropriate or "healthy" way for a human being to develop psychologically? It seems to me like there is. For example, if someone tends to get very angry and hostile toward others for no good reason all the time, I'd say that was a psychological flaw. I think it's not the end of the world to have a psychological flaw but it's maybe not healthy in some ways to insist that a psychological flaw is not a psychological flaw. Otherwise, it seems like living in denial.

On the other hand, how should others approach someone with a psychological flaw? For example, it may be realistic for a paraplegic not to be a firefighter but it's probably not a very healthy thing to run around telling paraplegics, "hey, you're paraplegic and you'll never amount to anything." I suppose it's not healthy to draw attention to a person's handicap and insist that they shouldn't think of themselves as not having one. Clearly, no one should have to dwell on a handicap as being the last word or say in whether their life is worthwhile to live.

What are your thoughts?
If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
It's none of your beeswax.
OMG - you again. And this time trying to sound human.
LIke I said last time you responded to my post
Fuck off.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 am
Gary Childress wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:29 pm

Wow. You are awfully touchy today.
Don't mind him, Gary. He's just pissed cuz he don't like bein' called out.
Well, I don't think I was calling anyone out on anything. Just expressing my views on things. Like I say, I'll call people by whatever title they want so long as it's not something humiliating like "your lordship." However, trying to keep straight which men want to be referred to as "her" and which women want to be referred to as "him" might get tricky sometimes. I mean, if a male dresses pretty convincingly as a female or vice versa, then there probably won't be too much confusion over preferred pronouns. I would just hope they are upfront about their gender confusion before someone of the same sex asks them out and invests time in courtship with them. But who knows how that works these days.
Sculpty is a self-conscious dress-wearer. Any comment or criticism, no matter how benign, is callin' him out.

You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:22 am
Sculptor wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 10:40 pm

If this is your view then you are fucking bigot. If it is Rowlings view then she is a bigot but you ought to put it in quotes.
I'll take it as yours
Nature is not capable of mandating a socially constructed set of behaviours.
The argument from nature is called a "naturalistic fallacy", you ought to look it up. But who gives a fuck what you think. MOnd your own business and let people live in ways they think comfortable. And I'll give you the priviledge of not judging you. This is NOT 1950. Move the fuck on
It's none of your beeswax.
OMG - you again. And this time trying to sound human.
LIke I said last time you responded to my post
Fuck off.
:lol: :lol: What a charmer you are. So typical of the terribly woke. The biggest phony wankers on the planet.
It's none of your fucking business because it doesn't affect you--or were you intending to prance around naked in women's changing rooms singing 'Man, I feel like a woman la la la...' ?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:01 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:28 am

Don't mind him, Gary. He's just pissed cuz he don't like bein' called out.
Well, I don't think I was calling anyone out on anything. Just expressing my views on things. Like I say, I'll call people by whatever title they want so long as it's not something humiliating like "your lordship." However, trying to keep straight which men want to be referred to as "her" and which women want to be referred to as "him" might get tricky sometimes. I mean, if a male dresses pretty convincingly as a female or vice versa, then there probably won't be too much confusion over preferred pronouns. I would just hope they are upfront about their gender confusion before someone of the same sex asks them out and invests time in courtship with them. But who knows how that works these days.
Sculpty is a self-conscious dress-wearer. Any comment or criticism, no matter how benign, is callin' him out.

You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
I think he just wants to be able to prance around women's toilets waving his penis around.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:03 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:01 am

Well, I don't think I was calling anyone out on anything. Just expressing my views on things. Like I say, I'll call people by whatever title they want so long as it's not something humiliating like "your lordship." However, trying to keep straight which men want to be referred to as "her" and which women want to be referred to as "him" might get tricky sometimes. I mean, if a male dresses pretty convincingly as a female or vice versa, then there probably won't be too much confusion over preferred pronouns. I would just hope they are upfront about their gender confusion before someone of the same sex asks them out and invests time in courtship with them. But who knows how that works these days.
Sculpty is a self-conscious dress-wearer. Any comment or criticism, no matter how benign, is callin' him out.

You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
I think he just wants to be able to prance around women's toilets waving his penis around.
Absolutely. He wears the dress but he'll never lop off his tallywhacker.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Sculptor »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:59 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:22 am
It's none of your beeswax.
OMG - you again. And this time trying to sound human.
LIke I said last time you responded to my post
Fuck off.
:lol: :lol: What a charmer you are. So typical of the terribly woke. The biggest phony wankers on the planet.
It's none of your fucking business because it doesn't affect you--or were you intending to prance around naked in women's changing rooms singing 'Man, I feel like a woman la la la...' ?
Please refer to the post I made above
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Gary Childress »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
Well, if it makes him self-conscious and feeling persecuted, then I feel like I should change my mind about things. Everyone should feel accepted so long as they aren't doing something that will cause harm to others. Sculptor is OK, just different. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Singling him out for bullying is no better than being singled out ourselves. It would be nice if we could all just get along.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by henry quirk »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
Well, if it makes him self-conscious and feeling persecuted, then I feel like I should change my mind about things. Everyone should feel accepted so long as they aren't doing something that will cause harm to others. Sculptor is OK, just different. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Singling him out for bullying is no better than being singled out ourselves. *It would be nice if we could all just get along.
*Yep, but not a the price of takin' a knee to, or turnin' a blnd eye to, or givin' a pass to, wholesale nutjobbery.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
Well, if it makes him self-conscious and feeling persecuted, then I feel like I should change my mind about things. Everyone should feel accepted so long as they aren't doing something that will cause harm to others. Sculptor is OK, just different. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Singling him out for bullying is no better than being singled out ourselves. It would be nice if we could all just get along.
I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by Gary Childress »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:56 pm You have to decide, Gary: will you speak your mind or be bulldogged by a trannie?
Well, if it makes him self-conscious and feeling persecuted, then I feel like I should change my mind about things. Everyone should feel accepted so long as they aren't doing something that will cause harm to others. Sculptor is OK, just different. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Singling him out for bullying is no better than being singled out ourselves. It would be nice if we could all just get along.
I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.

And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: JK Rowling vs. History

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:21 pm

Well, if it makes him self-conscious and feeling persecuted, then I feel like I should change my mind about things. Everyone should feel accepted so long as they aren't doing something that will cause harm to others. Sculptor is OK, just different. We all have our idiosyncrasies. Singling him out for bullying is no better than being singled out ourselves. It would be nice if we could all just get along.
I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.

And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
Post Reply