search term safari!

It’s Monday, so here are the answers to some of last week’s search terms.

bundeswehr knife

These days, it’s the Victorinox Trekker for a utility blade, and the tanto-bladed KM2000 for a fighing knife. When I was in the service, it was the “Fallmesser” gravity knife for parachuting units (the blades were pretty wobbly in the hilt), and some nondescript non-locking pocket folder for utility use. No fighting knives back then, and no bayonets, since that would mean some sort of offensive intent. (No, that’s not a joke.)

j-frame airweight buffalo-bore

You’re thinking about stuffing maximum-charge loads into a flyweight gun. It’ll hurt almost as bad on the giving end as on the receiving one. Don’t make a habit out of practicing with them…they’ll beat up both you and your gun unduly.

“summer glau” “fighting style”

No idea what it’s called, but the stuff she did in “Serenity” is probably most aptly described as “killer ballet”. I re-watch the movie just for her fight scenes.

1st amendment “collective right”

You’re right, it totally is a collective right, just like they try and make the Second Amendment out to be. You have a right to free speech, as long as it’s exercised by a duly trained and licensed journalist writing for a government newspaper. You also have the right to freedom of religion, as long as you designate a professional, state-licensed priest to pray for you.

“national socialist”

Thumb-sucking bedwetters who like uniforms, German tanks, and the idea of being special because of their skin color. Usually overweight and undereducated.

how to make red die diesel clear again

“Red dye diesel” is not diesel, but heating oil. You can’t make it clear again. Don’t get pulled over.

math problem how many possible area code

Discounting the fact that certain numbers like “000” or “666” are unavailable for area codes, you have 10x10x10 possible permutations of a three-digit number, so 1,000 possible area codes.

sally kern saids homosexuality is bigger

Sally Kern is a homophobic douchebag who knows even less about history and sociology than she knows about her own religion. She probably wouldn’t be able to find her own ass if you filled it with radium and handed her a Geiger counter.

That’s this week’s take, folks. Tune in again next Monday for another round! And remember, this service is provided strictly for the benefit of the Googling public. You’re welcome.

50 thoughts on “search term safari!

  1. karrde says:

    re: area codes

    I think the phone companies don’t allow for leading-zero on area codes (or on the first digit of the 7-digit phone number).

    This would mean that there are are 900 area codes, or 899 if they avoid the nefarious Number Of Man, SIx Hundred Sixty Six.

    This would also mean that there are 9,000,000 phone numbers per area code (9 possible first digits, ten possible digits for each of the next six), leaving 8,100,000,000 (or 8,091,000,000 if there is no “666” area code) total phone numbers under this system.

    I’m not too surprised that we haven’t had to seriously revamp the phone-enumeration system since the area-code-plus-7-digit system was invented.

  2. shdwfx says:

    And now all the “tolerant” people shall engage in a Sally Kern insult contest.

  3. munchkinwrangler says:

    I don’t claim to be universally tolerant.

    Stupidity and narrow-minded bigotry deserve to be called out. Or do you hold the opinion that all ideas and philosophies have equal value?

  4. MikeW says:

    There are far fewer area codes that 1,000. Check the North America Dialing Plan. There are number restrictions of the area code format. The first and second digits have restrictions on allowable numbers.

    In some areas for the country, there are two area codes, one overlaying the other. Manhattan Island in New York is one that comes to mind.

  5. Tam says:

    “shdwfx”,

    And now all the “tolerant” people shall engage in a Sally Kern insult contest.

    The “tolerant” people can try and engage in the contest, but intolerant people like me will totally pwn them.

  6. Tam says:

    PS: “shdwfx”? Really? Do you not feel at least a little silly using a Dungeons & Tolkein nom de web in a room full of grownups?

  7. shdwfx says:

    The need to poke fun at screen names to assert a sense of superiority merely indicates latent imaturity.

  8. shdwfx says:

    I agree that universal tolerance is a farce.
    I just disagree that intolerance of intolerance is any more or less valid on its own merit.

  9. shdwfx says:

    Thing is, bashing anyone who takes issue with homosexuality is a vogue sport. How is that behavior better than that of the ‘homophobes’ they vilify?

    Sally Kern believes homosexuality is a real problem that is ripping apart the moral fabric of society and can destroy the lives of our children.

    Some here believe she is an evil hate-monger and a narrow-minded bigot just for saying so.

    Who’s to say those of the latter opinion are not engaged in narrow-minded, moralphobic bigotry themselves?

    *shrugs*

    I guess I don’t see from where this position derives it’s moral authority (yes, you might say the same, but on what grounds?).

  10. munchkinwrangler says:

    “Moralphobic”…how funny. I think that I have a pretty well-honed sense of morality.

    You know those swastika-wearing retards i referenced a few posts down? They think that white people interbreeding with niggers is a real problem that is ripping apart the moral fabric of society and can destroy the lives of our children.

    Am I narrow-minded and “moralphobic” for objecting vocally to such a philosophy? Their claim to morality is just as valid and well-supported as Sally Kern’s opinion on the morality of her position.

    Oh, and fifty or so years ago, people like Sally would have agreed publically with that interbreeding comment, using the exact same arguments.

  11. shdwfx says:

    My conviction is that homosexuality is a perversion of God’s original intent.

    But, I do not and will not jam that down any ones’ throat and would be the first to condemn the disgusting actions of the Westboro faction.

    Contrariwise, the doctrine of ‘tolerance’ is jammed down our throats every day. Constantly, are we reminded that anyone bold enough to dare state their moral convictions on this subject will be severely vilified, mocked, and scorned.
    This is all done with language and name-calling most Jews and Christians would never espouse when describing their opposition to homosexuality.

    So who is the hate-monger? Who is the narrow-minded one? Who is the bigot?
    By what authority or standard is this done?

    That is my only point.

  12. munchkinwrangler says:

    “By what authority or standard is this done?”

    Since you asked: I determine the morality of an action by the Non-Aggression Principle. It’s as good a standard as any, and better than most, as far as I am concerned.

    I know what you’re trying to get at with your line of argument. You claim that my basis for determining morality is shifty and relative, while yours is absolute. The problem with that (and that’s what I tried to illustrate with my earlier example) is that your chosen basis, the celestial/Scriptural one, is not as absolute and rock-solid as you imagine it to be. My point was that fifty years ago, people like Sally were convinced, without the shadow of a doubt, that segregation was Biblically supported and ordained, and that deviating from it was against God’s plan. A hundred and fifty years ago, the same folks were convinced, without the shadow of a doubt, that slavery was Biblically supported and ordained, and that abolitionism was against God’s plan.

    The thing about these claims was that they were all supported with Scripture, just like Sally can drag out her Bible and point to Leviticus to support her claim about the immorality of homosexuality. (She’ll ignore or dismiss as “metaphorical” all the inconvenient stuff in Leviticus, which seem to indicate that God hates shellfish eaters just as much as homosexuality, but that’s for a different discussion.)

    So your moral bedrock seems to be more inconsistent than you think, seeing how the Bible can (and has) been used to support all kinds of stuff that’s now clearly conceded to be immoral. Seems like the previous generations were wrong on many occasions when they claimed the Bible to be an inerrant source of morality. Why, then, do you think they have it all figured out now?

    My moral basis and yours may very well both be arbitrary, but i consider mine the more consistent one. Even if that wasn’t the case, I don’t claim God’s will as backup for myself.

    Then there’s your vilification of the “doctrine of tolerance”. In a free society, tolerance is the default state. I have to tolerate the right of Nazis to assemble. I have to tolerate religious zealots telling me that I’ll burn in hell for not believing as they do. I don’t deny the Nazis their right to free speech, nor even Fred Phelps his right to exercise his own faith, and I’d never actively seek to have a hand in legislating such a denial. That’s more, however, than I can say for people like Sally, who consider it their God-mandated imperative to gain worldly power and use it to push the Right Way onto people.

    You can state your moral convictions about homosexuality all day long without having to fear that I will somehow actively try to curb your speech. I will, however, voice my disagreement using my own right to speak my mind.

    Why is it vilification if I call Sally ignorant and bigoted for her statements, yet you don’t consider those very statements vilification, mockery, and scorn as well? Just because she claims a religious base for her idea of morality, she gets a free pass to say that gays destroy our culture and civilization by their mere existence? I think you’re measuring with two different rulers here.

  13. Tam says:

    But, I do not and will not jam that down any ones’ throat…

    …and yet that is exactly what Sally Kearns was trying to do, with legislation.

  14. shdwfx says:

    I agree with you that having the government legislate morality is problematic. On that point, I disagree with Sally Kern.

    fifty years ago, people like Sally were [segregationists]…A hundred and fifty years ago, the same folks [supported slavery]

    I don’t see how you can make those sweeping claims since (1) how do you classify ‘sameness’ and (2) most ardent abolitionists used the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. I strongly disagree with your progression of church history and doctrine and I think history backs me up on this.

    But, what you say about the Bible being used arbitrarily to support differing views on other topics is certainly true and I do not dispute that. However, on this topic, the Bible is very explicit, and you will find those who both profess Christianity and support homosexuality also do not assert the Bible’s inerrancy. There is no contradiction here.

    (I didn’t want to get into a debate on religious minutia, but since you brought it up…)

    Now I appreciate your support of my free speech and there is no contradiction there either. You and I are both free in this country to speak our minds and criticize each other’s opinions all we want. That’s a fine thing.

    But if you can honestly say with a straight face that it is politically and socially ‘safer’ to speak ones convictions against homosexuality than it is to ridicule those who do, can I come live in your world?

    What if I had made the reciprocal statement “Ben Patrick Johnson is a homo douchebag who knows even less about history and sociology than he knows about his own anatomy. He probably wouldn’t be able to find his own a** if you filled it with radium and handed him a Geiger counter.”? How wrong would I be?

    Also, how does your Non-Aggression Principle harmonize with calling Sally Kern a homophobic douchebag?

  15. munchkinwrangler says:

    Read up on the NAP, and then show me where I visited force or fraud on Sally.

    The ironic thing is that I don’t consider her a douchebag and a homophobe for believing God opposes homosexuality. I think she’s a douchebag and a homophobe because she made some idiotic and demonstrably untrue public statements about the longevity of nations that “embraced” homosexuality, and because she uses her position as a legislator to actively marginalize and disadvantage homosexuals.

    You’ve missed my point on the inerrancy of the Bible again, by the way. And let’s not even get into all the other things on which the Bible is quite explicit, but which the “Biblical inerrancy” crowd chooses to either ignore or read as metaphorical.

    Oh, let’s get into it, just out of curiosity. Do you believe that gays should be executed? (Because the Bible is explicit on the punishment for homosexuality: it’s death.)

    If no, why do you choose to mitigate your viewpoint despite the unambiguous wording of the relevant verse, Leviticus 20:13, which reads: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

    If yes, do you also believe that eating shellfish and touching the skin of a pig are abominable acts?

    Just checking the consistency of your position here, regarding unambiguous Biblical statements.

    And you really do need to read up on the history of slavery and abolition. The abolitionists were often religiously motivated, that is true, but you simply cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that most of the pro-slavery and segregationist arguments and propaganda were religiously supported. I don’t deny the role of religion in abolishing those immoral institutions, and I won’t let you ignore or deny the role of religion in keeping them alive.

  16. shdwfx says:

    I would be happy to engage in a discussion of Leviticus 20 and Romans 1 in light of Act 15 and Romans 11, but as you are of the opinion that the Bible is merely a means to serve the whim of the reader, I don’t see the point or the reason why I should answer you on this.

  17. munchkinwrangler says:

    Thats’a a cop-out, and you and I both know it.

  18. shdwfx says:

    And, I do not ignore that many claiming the cloak of Christ have used the Bible to support their own opinions and for their own vile ends (including racism) and I previously admitted as much. So how are you “not letting me ignore” this?

  19. shdwfx says:

    Call cop-out as you please, but what good would it do to discuss living under the New Covenant and Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Covent versus living under the law (all scripture, see Romans 11, Hebrews 8)?

    You have already asserted that in your opinion the Bible is inconsistent and is twisted merely to the whim of the interpreter. So, why even ask?

  20. shdwfx says:

    Is it out of a genuine desire to know, or merely a means to generate fodder for contention?

  21. munchkinwrangler says:

    You’re proving my point, shdwfx.

    You’re taking a rock-hard, unequivocal, explicit Biblical statement, and you apply filters to it to suit your purpose. You claim theological exceptions and special circumstances to explain that the Leviticus verse no longer exactly means what it says, because the absoluteness of the verse has become inconvenient.

    What was that again about the Bible being a “a means to serve the whim of the reader”? If Leviticus 20 can be defused in that fashion by claiming New Covenant mitigations, isn’t that precisely an attempt to *not* read the Bible literally? Oh, sure, your “New Covenant” argument is a nice theological wrapper, but in the end, it’s just a vehicle to tell yourself that you’re not really de-literalizing the parts of the Bible you don’t want to accept literally.

  22. shdwfx says:

    …you don’t want to accept literally.

    Oh, I see.

    You have a problem reconciling (1) my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and (2) the notion that every verse (taken out of context, not to mention out of context of Paul’s writings) is something that should be applied literally.

  23. munchkinwrangler says:

    There is no “taking out of context” for Leviticus 20:13, shdwfx.

    All you’re doing is making yourself a plausible vehicle to tell yourself that you’re still reading the Bible as literal and inerrant. In reality, you’re using the bits that suit your feelings, and you’re explaining away the ones that don’t.

    How convenient it is to have the theological insight to use the Bible in any way that suits your argument. You can point to the good parts and say, “Here’s the literal Word of God on the matter”…and when someone points out the parts that don’t support your position, you can say, “That needs to be read in context.

    Talk about a convenient universal adapter for expedient morality…

  24. shdwfx says:

    I disagree, you are taking Leviticus 20:13 out of context.

    you’re still reading the Bible as literal and inerrant.

    Please see my comment above.

  25. perlhaqr says:

    Ok, well, as someone who isn’t particularly well versed in Christianity over here, can you explain what the proper context for Leviticus 20:13 is, then? If Romans 11 and Hebrews 8 make Leviticus 20 no longer applicable, then why do you still believe homosexuality to be sinful?

  26. Tam says:

    perlhaqr,

    No, Paul just green lights oysters on the half shell and touching footballs. Homos are icky, so they’re still toast.

    Oh, and shdwfx?

    But if you can honestly say with a straight face that it is politically and socially ’safer’ to speak ones convictions against homosexuality than it is to ridicule those who do, can I come live in your world?

    Spoken like a person who’s never taken a stomping over a PDA. I can hold hands with a date in public; I’ll presume you can as well. There are lots of Americans who take their life in their hands if they do.

    So there’s “socially safe” and then there’s “socially safe”.

  27. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    I suppose I am a homophobe too. Half the ones you see on TV have some serious problems and many are downright disturbed, but you can’t say so because the politically correct bedwetters will have a bird.

    Furthermore, I truly despise their bullshit attacks on the church and the schools too. I don’t want our kids learning the mechanics of anal sex from homosexual teachers in elementary school, I think they need to grow up a bit first.

    I never figured that one out with the child-molesting priests either. The church got egged for it when these men were clearly not christians, but rather homosexuals. Yet for some reason it is now illegal to acknowledge the fact that the homos are far more likely to molest children, succumb to HIV/AIDS, or suffer other serious mental problems. I know that there are otherwise reasonable homosexuals out there that are the exception to the stereotype…but let’s face facts: they are the exception.

    There is nothing wrong with christians or any other group having a political agenda. They are merely another special interest group like any other.

  28. munchkinwrangler says:

    Rusty,

    you’re misinformed.

    The vast majority of child molesters are straight males, not homosexuals.

    And the curriculum for your local school is set by your state’s department of education and your elected local school board, not by teh gayz. If you object to “elementary school kids learning the mechanics of anal sex” (a salacious piece of hyperbole if I’ve ever heard one, and patently untrue at that), then you need to take it up with your school board and organize a drive to vote them out.

    I have no idea where you get your preconceptions about gays, but they reflect the actual status of gays in this country as well as Sarah Brady’s ideas about “assault weapons” reflect the true capabilities of the rifles in our gun cabinets. It’s emotional hogwash, and that’s the most polite way I can put it.

  29. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    Actually, Munchkin – I can forgive Sarah Brady. She is misinformed. You have the blinders on, as does most of your generation. You kids have been brainwashed by the social engineers and your blindness is every bit as debilitating as a blind faith in the bible is.

    Per capita, homosexuals (teh gayz, if you prefer) are about 30 times more likely to attack children than heterosexuals. Lesbians are twice as likely to engage in spousal abuse (for lack of a better term) than heterosexuals. Their stats with suicide and depression are likewise through the roof. To acknowledge any of this is to be percieved as a bigot, a hater or a loon. (I am an old guy, I am comfortable with any label you care to hang on me).

    Let me digress:

    Watch the gong show unfolding with global warming, Munchkin. Look at the idiocy behind biofuels and green strategies that are eagerly taken up by fools and end up causing more harm than good. Their science is junk, their facts are wishful thinking, and the intelligent man has to ask how so many people could seriously be so stupid and blind.

    The same thing happened with the queers 25 years ago. A century of classical psychology went out the window almost overnight. Self proclaimed academics and intellectuals took up the cause of ‘teh gayz’ and the cud chewing ruminants that fawn over their every word followed them with the same blind faith that a christian zealot follows a TV evangelist. Dissenters were shouted down, mocked, and robbed of their respectability.

    In the real world, you can see it for yourself at the so-called Gay Pride events and demonstrations. Pardon me for my language in mixed company, but – how many topless floppy titted lesbians in fetish gear do you have to see? Do you seriously want to tell me that a full grown man, dressed in a diaper, waving a rubber dink round and screeching at the top of his lungs – do you seriously want to tell me that these people are healthy, Munchkin?

    I grew up in better times with better people when the realities of mental illness were not suspended by social engineers and politically correct zealots. On your next vacation, you should read up on the subject, and read the older stuff too. It is scientifically valid today as it was all those decades ago.

    Now you seem to think that christians are behind the times and behind the 8 ball on homosexuality. I don’t think so, and here’s why: alot of societal, tribal and religous taboos arise out of real world experience. Promiscuity spread disease; the ancients didn’t know why, only that it did – so the faith evolved to condemn it. Adultery and fornication broke hearts and families and set them against each other – so faiths evolve to condemn that as well. Homosexuals – how many gays are truly happy people? Let’s be honest: most are sullen, angry wrecks. So it is that my faith grew to condemn homosexuality too.

    I realize my faith has limits and I actively disagree with it on issues like abortion and divorce. I can look at my peers and my social conditioning and think past it – or at least I try to. Can you do the same Munchkin?

  30. perlhaqr says:

    Their stats with suicide and depression are likewise through the roof.

    And of course, none of that could be, shall we say, “environmental”. I personally have a difficult time imagining why someone who is continually denigrated by society and sentenced to live a second-class existence might possibly be “sullen, angry wrecks”.

    Oh, wait. No I don’t.

  31. connie says:

    “Half the ones you see on TV have some serious problems and many are downright disturbed.”

    Is that how we evaluate certain subsets of population now – by how they are represented on TV? In that case, I could conclude pretty much every teenager, every Caucasian, every female or every Christian has serious problems.

    Rusty, I am uncomfortable with labeling you as a loon (or bigot) just because you have expressed your disdain for homosexuality. I would personally hate to be judged on only one aspect of my personality. Being part of this generation involves being more accepting of views that one may or may not fully understand. I’m still struggling to see how that’s a bad thing.

  32. Roberta X says:

    Cites for your stats, Rusty?

    C’mon. I work in the media and plenty of the people I work with are…”different.” While media types are often indeed effed up, especially the on-camera types, the homo ones are not any more (or any less) troubled than their hetero counterparts. Admittedly, most of them are not the sort of person who goes marching in parades — but tell me, what would be our opinion of Americans of Irish descent if we judged them on the basis of participants in St. Paddy’s Day parades?

  33. ATLien says:

    First off, say what you want, but tam was right about the name. fail.

    Second. It’s none of your damn business if someone loves a man, woman, rock, tree, or goat. As long as they do it privately. It doesn’t hurt you. Not everyone believes in your God. That doesn’t hurt you, either (unless their god demands that you be subjugated for not believing).

    Yes, I find it annoying when certain gay people shove their sexuality in my face and revolve their whole life around it. HOWEVER, I find the same thing about heterosexuals who do the same thing. It’s just tacky. But that’s mostly because i don’t care.

    And there’s the crux of it. You shouldn’t care, either. Yeah, your doctrine my insist that you do care, but we’re fallible creatures- ask for forgiveness in your not caring and move on. Look at it this way: it’s one less thing you can worry your brain over. You’ll thank me in the end.

    When rampaging homosexuals demand that you join them in worshiping a Gay God on threat of death or dismemberment or loss of liberty, then you can worry and we’ll back you up.

  34. Rusty P. Bucket says:

    I suppose you are right, Connie, the media sells muck, and it pays for them to portray queers in the worst light possible. But what about those parades that are thousands strong? And the bath houses? The fact is that alot of these people have serious issues and they are not going to get help because it isn’t politically correct for homos to have mental problems. Bill Clinton (of all the people) proposed the policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. That works for me, but not for a significant portion of the gays. They are hellbent on promoting this one aspect of their personality above all others, and in the most offesive way possible. How can I not judge them on it?

    Perlaqr, do me a favour – pull my other finger. I’m sorry, when I see and hear of transvestites, bath houses, and glory holes (sorry for bringing up the graphic stuff that nobody wants to talk about – but it is germaine to my point), I see a flake with mental problems. Calling such people ‘transgendered-two spirited’ is going to do nothing for their self esteem when the problems go much deeper than mere homosexuality.

    ATLien: yes heterosexuals behave poorly too. I don’t accept that either and see it as no reason not to hold the homos to a higher standard. Instead we are creating different standards, and lower ones in my opinion. A landmark case occured in Canada recently – the cops caught a man with a large child porn collection and arrested him and confiscated the material. In court, the man pleads that he is a homosexual, and that his kiddie porn isn’t porn, but rather – art. The judge agrees, the man goes free and the cops go nuts. They tell the judge, the journalists and anyone that will listen that the man is a menace to society and a threat to children. Nobody listens, the homosexuals have their rights and we must respect them in good libertarian fashion, right? 6 months later, our art collector is back in jail after attacking a six year old boy. Tell me again, Perlhaqr, how society is so intolerant of homosexuals? How many such incidents do you have to see before you change your mind, ATLien?

    As I said, there is serious selective blindness going on here. To look at this in a clinical, cold, objective manner in today’s political climate is unthinkable. I could post sites and stats for Roberta that defend my position, and the first thing she will do is attack those sources as biased, fretting about who did the studies rather than looking at how the stats and studies were done. There is 25 years of cultural conditioning going on here and I don’t seriously expect to change anyone’s mind. I have started chitstorms with my views with acrimonious and sanctimonious posters howling for my blood, so badly ingrained are their attitudes. It is refreshing to be able to discuss such subjects with intelligent folk that are above such childishness.

    You all have a good day, and remember that my opinion is worth less than what you paid for it.

  35. Don Meaker says:

    Whether queer folk will burn in hell is not ours to determine. We are called to sales, not maagement.

    Whether queer folk will get stomped for PDA or not, they have a vote, by their decision to pack heat, or not. That is why the NRA was started, so that minority folk could defend themselves. The busy bodies tend to get less nosy when their personal well being is at stake. Just like the thieves who would steal your money, those who would steal your joy are just as cowardly.

    When two lesbians walk down the street together, all anyone sees is fat women, with edgy haircuts. By their behavior they can set themselves apart, or not. If they choose to set themselves apart, they should asess the risk, and take appropriate action to mitigate it. Or not, because they would rather whine about it.

  36. D.W. Drang says:

    “Whether queer folk will get stomped for PDA or not, they have a vote, by their decision to pack heat, or not. That is why the NRA was started, so that minority folk could defend themselves. ”
    Well, no, actually the NRA was started because a bunch of former Union generals were, shall we say, disappointed by the levels of marklsmenship displayed by Eastern Urban Recruits. The NRA didn’t become a gun rights activist organization for years after it was founded.

    “When two lesbians walk down the street together, all anyone sees is fat women, with edgy haircuts.”
    Just to ramp up the discourse further, I happen to know several lesbians who, if you knew they were lesbians, let’s just you’d be disappointed. Lesbians are not all “fat women, with edgy haircuts.” Some of them are quite attractive.

  37. Bill says:

    wow….strong feelings

    I too feel that homosexuality is a perversion of nature as well as Gods law

    But I also realize that none of us measures up…so while it (homosexuality) will never receive my approval (FWIW)….it will also never be villified by me.

    But when one group resorts to legislation in an attempt to mainstream a “perversion”….you cannot be too surprised when the oppostion resorts to legislation to counter it

    I just wish the debate could remain civil…but with imperfect people involved (on both sides) that is highly unlikely

    And one wonders what might happen if a certain sect in Texas had better marketing

  38. dustbury.com says:

    This week in Kerndom…

    A few days back, Sarah described Sally Kern, who represents District 84 in the Oklahoma House, as “the gift that keeps on giving.” And apparently this generosity is spread far and wide. For instance, the Munchkin Wrangler, reviewing his search……

  39. staghounds says:

    Between jamming down throats and rock hard principles…

    My position on the whole thing is, if it’s your mouth, carry coal in it if you want to. I demand the same. It’s none of anyone’s business as long as you don’t do it in the street and scare the horses.

    I gasp in wonder at the number of people whose lives are of such perfection that what they imagine two consenting adults do privately sends them crazy.

  40. E says:

    Oh man, you people make me so mad.
    And judging morality of the individual based on pop-culture ignorance?
    How unforgivable is that, I can’t even describe. Didn’t we already have this argument that last time the Great White Horse Savior complained about its cognitive dissonance?

    It is this very impulse to legislate misdirected morality based on completely misconceived notions of threat that leads to concentration camps, pogroms, stompings, lynchings, and outright genocide. That is the legacy of your failure to distinguish between “you gross me out” and “you’re hurting me”. Furthermore, the blindness that allows you to file all such behavior under the heading of a single group-at-fault is unforgivably short-sighted, and indicative of a mind that is unwilling to truly analyze a problem to discover its source.

    That you can imagine (or read a story about) a homosexual teacher instructing your children on the mechanics of anal sex DOES NOT MAKE IT A NATIONAL THREAT. What if it were being taught by a heterosexual english teacher instead? ‘Cause let me tell you, I certainly know hetero folks who engage in that sort of activity.

    Pedophilia harms children – it doesn’t matter the source. Period. Why can’t you place the blame on the individuals and the societal pressures that create such behaviors? Why do you need to tie it to some group of Others who are “destroying our society”? This isn’t a new problem, it just didn’t used to get any airtime because nobody would talk about it. Of the SEVERAL people I know who were abused as children, all suffered at the hands of heterosexual adults.

    Gay Rights is a Civil Rights issue, just like Women’s vote, Abolition, and the end of Jim Crow. It’s all the same issue. It’s not about the right of sexual choice – it’s about the right of leave me alone and treat me like a citizen. It’s about “Keep your laws off my body”. Why do you keep doing this? What are you protecting? Some notion of a perfect society that was? It wasn’t. The good old days weren’t so good. They might have been easy on your mind, but that ain’t the same thing, and don’t think for 1 minute that your experience of the Good Old Days was the same for everyone else as it was for you.

    You will find yourself to be a happier person when you realize that you are not under threat from these changes in society, and neither are your children. However, like firearms and sex, uneducated children will be at risk without some basic safety tools with which to approach the world. Teach your kids to be think safe, and no matter what the world presents them with, they will have the faculties to handle it.

    If you know an individual who’s having promiscuous unsafe sex, call him/her a filthy dirty whore and know your point has been made, and tell your children it’s a bad idea. But when you say “all homosexuals are filthy dirty whores and therefore legislation/damnation is warranted” you’ve crossed the line (two, actually). Do you see the difference?

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    And if I have to actually name the source of that MLK reference, then we are truly doomed.

    People *suffered* in the beloved ’50’s. Don’t forget it.
    I’ll take honest complexity over simple repression, and although that itself is oversimplifying,I think it satisfies Markos’s NAP.

    -E

  41. Kristopher says:

    Why is it so damned hard for people to just mind their own business?

  42. Why?
    Well, in my country, there’s this little thing called the First Amendment. As long as I’m not slandering, committing libel, or spreading treason, I can say every whit that’s on my mind. You can too. Neat, huh?

  43. williamthecoroner says:

    Kristopher–because then they’d have to confront their own inadequacies.

    Bill–‘When one group resorts to legislation in order to mainstream a “perversion” you cannot be too surprised when the opposition turns to legislation to counter it’– yes. Like those pesky 13th and 14th amendments. Horrifying.

  44. Cepik says:

    Hello everyone,,

    I’m new here (came over from another gun blog), I don’t mean to interrupt but wanted to figure out the “search term safari”. Do we google the things that you put up (like a scanger hunt but in a cyber kind of way) or is it something you google and comment on? I tried to find the post with last weeks search terms but couldn’t. I tend to stay away from the religious discussions of the other threads.

    Anyways, interesting blog.

    Tchuss,

    Cepik

  45. Cepik says:

    Dang it,

    it should read scavenger hunt

  46. munchkinwrangler says:

    Cepik,

    I use the statistics in my WordPress control panel for material. It tells me the search terms people used to find my blog, and I just copy the most interesting ones to answer in a blog post.

  47. Tam says:

    I don’t mean to interrupt but wanted to figure out the “search term safari”

    Marko’s just gone through his server logs and dredged up interesting phrases that folks had typed into search engines that wound them up on his blog.

  48. Cepik says:

    Oh,

    I came back by typing in munchkin wrangler, I had clicked over earlier today from another blog. Dang, I was thinking it was some kind of game. What part of Deutschland you from? I was in Rhineland Pfalz for a couple of years, but am not (obviously from my name) German.

  49. Roberta X says:

    1. Cites that aren’t cited don’t count.
    2. Pointing to extreme examples and saying, “See?” is all marvelous an’ stuff but ignores the non-extreme people, who aren’t out there being freaky — like all the Irish who neither march nor get sloppy drunk, come mid-March. As for public sex, etc., eee Marko’s comments anent sickos.
    3. You know, it is perfectly okay to be revolted by [whatever], and never do [whatever] and disown any relation of yours who ever [whatevers]. We’re all good with that. And we can all agree that children should be protected from sexual predators.
    4. Pretty much every survey reflects the biases of the people who set ’em up. Good researchers to try to avoid it but it’s very difficult. Other variables, like sample size, location of respondents, attempts to game the survey, etc. can also make the results iffy. Me, I go by the people I know. The freak quotient of that group is very low. Some of ’em are homosexual. None of them are queer.

  50. TheFactChequer says:

    1. Cites that aren’t cited don’t count.
    [united]4. Pretty much every survey reflects the biases of the people who set ‘em up.
    Well, if you’re going to get snooty and picky…

Comments are closed.