Vasaris, the Fuzzy Dragon's Journal
Pulled this off of Mock the Stupid over at LJ.
Scary. Very, very scary.
Current mood: energetic.
Mostly this is just an update for those of us who were so amused by the fake C&D order sent to Turimel by Amy Player/Jordan Wood and Abby Stone.
Turns out that a) our faint hopes that it could be considered extortion have been squashed and b) the crooked accounting used by said ladies is even worse than previously believed.
Here's to hoping that the Oregon Attorney General puts his/her butt in gear to go after BoE as a fraudulent charity because, even as an uninvolved bystander, I'm personally getting pissed off by our injustice system.
Current mood: *Snarl*.
Current music: None. I should find something to soothe the savage breast..
Having lifted this from this thread on fandom_wank I find that despite the fact that I don't think anyones reading this, I've got to rant a bit about it.
I don't understand why people think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other. In the broadest sense I have a feel for why conservative, generally Christian groups have a problem with the idea of homosexuality and even why they would have difficulty with them marrying within the Church.
What I don't understand is their problem with legal marriage. Legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Truthfully, they never have been the same thing.
Religious marriage is generally a ceremony, meant to join two people in the eyes of their deity as a unit. It is a vow of commitment made before (and occasionally to) the strongest judge a person may have available to them... their deity-of-choice.
Legal marriage, on the other hand, is a slip of paper saying that two people are joining their households and finances into a new, legal unit. This unit is responsible for the upkeep of said household -- finances, property, children (if they should have any), etc. Legal marriage brings tax and insurance benefits (or, in some cases penalties) that any two people who share responsibility should have the right to share. If I had a same-gendered partner, why shouldn't I have the right to make decisions about their welfare when we have joined our households? If I had an opposite-gendered partner, I could.
For centuries religious and legal marriage have tended to occur at the same time, leading to the confusion that many people seem to have about the issue. If I lived in a theocracy that would even make sense.
However, I live in the USA. Our government is not a theocracy. The civil side of marriage is just that, civil. It isn't religious, has nothing to do with religious taboos, and should be equally available to any two (or more, if for some bizarre reason you feel the need to join your finances with more than one person) people who desire to do so.
Current mood: depressed.
Fandom_Scruples is at it again, but even more fun, of course is that elance had five bucks to make F_S a paid site.
And, amidst the praising and petting and posturing comes... teh wankage.
I'm not sure which is more amusing "I've submitted Fandom_Scruples to LJ for harassment!" or "I think I should submit you to LJ for harassment... and F_S is just trying to do the right thing! As a responsible adult don't you think it's the right thing to censor the internet... If a seven year old read a Weaselycest gang bang with Ginny, they'd be scarred for life."
rumbling roaring can be heard in the background
Houston, we have lift off!
Hey, nice lady, d'you suppose we could apply Earth Logic to this?
*boggles at the idea of a seven year old even trying to sound out much of the smut I've read*
"Mommy, mommy! What's an ear-eck-shon?"
Yes, mommy, please tell Timmy all about it.
Of course some of the other possible questions are are a bit more amusing...
"Mommy, mommy! What's a cock?"
"A male chicken, a rooster."
"Mommy, mommy! What's an ass?"
"A donkey, or a mule... You know, like Eyeore."
"Why's George stuffing his rooster up Freds Eyeore? That doesn't make any sense..."
'Cause any other definitions give cock-a-leekie soup a whole new meaning.
Every time I see the 'Think of the Children' sort of thing, I laugh, in an appalled sort of way.
And, of course, I have to rant about it.
Usually I do that at home, but what-the-hell.
Strangely, I do believe in the fact that adults do owe the community to help raise children they encounter -- personally I see this as doing the "hi, how are you? How was school? Do anything interesting?" sort of way. As a cashier I insist that kids count their own money and figure out if they've got enough to make a purchase on their own. When necessary, I can and do correct behavior... even in grown ups.
Does this mean I think it's my job to censor what I (or any one else) writes?
Nope. At least not for the reason of protecting a child who isn't on my computer. If they're using my machine to surf the net, then yes, I'd provide supervision. I'm not doing it for an unsupervised brat six states over and smoking crack.
One commenter in teh extended wankage asked if I would leave toxic materials at a playground.
No. Of course not.
Several people took umbrage at that -- not that I blame them -- but my reasons are a bit different.
Question: Would you leave a small child of the age proposed (7 or 8) alone and unsupervised on a playground?
I wouldn't, even though the average playground is a hell of a lot more kid friendly than the internet.
Children shouldn't be left unsupervised at play.
One never knows when they might poke their eyes out with sticks or go off with the child molester who lives down the street. This happens all the damn time because of lack of parental supervision.
Older children (say, 10-13) should have begun to have a grasp on how to protect themselves, but should still have reasonably strict supervision and older than that... Cthulhu on a crutch! Puberty and sex happen, people. If you haven't taught them by now, you are already screwed... and if the polls that were going on when I was a kid are still even reasonably accurate, there's a good chance that they have been too. I remember thinking as a 15 year old that those who were having sex were and those that weren't, weren't and it was too damn late for abstinence training anyway.
Either way, porn wasn't about to send me screaming into the arms of anonymous sex for hire.
Fandom_Scruples, its defenders and allies need to get a grip on reality and make a landing at White Sands.
Earth Logic is your friend.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's hysterical that the first match for Cthulhu in the spell check is Catholic?
Current mood: energetic.
Current music: Losing My Religion -- REM, Out of Time.
Fandom_Scruples is one of the funniest things I've seen in ages, but honestly the wank about it is even better... Four hundred comments on F_W? Loads of them to an idiot anon who was doing an excellent job of jerking everyone else off?
Not sure who I find more of teh funneh, F_S or F_W...
Current mood: *thud*.
Current music: Someone else watching Television.