Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - napnip

Main / Re: new forum
May 17, 2019, 01:02 PM
It's been a very VERY long time since I posted here.  Assuming it's still being read from time-to-time, I'd be interested in participating in the new discussion board.
Main / Re: My latest letter to the editor
Jul 12, 2007, 10:07 AM

You never minimalized rape nor called for it to be decriminalized.

I hate when people misrepresent what I said.  It's a tool people use to put you on the defensive while not answering your specific points.



You'll notice that I never posted a link on that board to here, rather I posted a link here to that board.  Which tells me that our unknown "friend" there who made that claim about me is probably a lurker here.  In fact, he/she/it probably is just a lurker here.

I never once stated that rape should be decriminalized.  What I said is that the definition shouldn't be watered down.
Main / Re: My latest letter to the editor
Jul 12, 2007, 06:53 AM
Looks like more nerves were struck.  Read the latest comments.
Main / Re: My latest letter to the editor
Jul 11, 2007, 07:27 PM
You have "anger" issues.

Funny, I failed to see that.

I'm pretty sure Pookie is a female. You have threatened her with your tone of typing. Watch-out!

Have you ever noticed that when feminists are having "anger issues" it's considered a virtue?  They're quick to declare how angry they are with what they declare "the Patriarchy" or "the system", and somehow it's virtuous for them to be angry.

But you let a man point out the inherent unfairness of the system as it pertains to men, then suddenly we have "anger issues" and it's no longer a virtue.  Simply another shaming tactic used to try to silence the opposition.  Observe how she eventually bailed out.

She pointed out that my statistic was wrong.  It just seemed to escape her that that was the whole freakin' point!   The statistic was incredibly wrong!  That was the whole point!  It was wrong, yet feminists and various "rape crisis" agencies continued to push it as though it were gospel truth.  Ol' Pookie made my point for me, yet she just doesn't seem to grasp that.
Main / Re: My latest letter to the editor
Jul 11, 2007, 05:52 PM
Looks like I struck a nerve.  Someone responded, and it's got a discussion going on their messageboard with me and a couple of other people.

Anybody here wanna join in?
Main / My latest letter to the editor
Jul 01, 2007, 09:55 AM
Here's my letter to the editor of a local newspaper (which actually enjoys state-wide circulation).  They printed it today, and surprisingly printed the entire thing except for the very last portion wherein I state that I want a refund for the $$$ I previously contributed to a local rape crisis center:

To the Editor:

Former DA Nifong was quick to play the race card in the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, but race wasn't the only thing that made this whole tragedy possible.  What else was?

We've got agencies such as rape crisis centers who knowingly and deliberately push debunked statistics such as "1 in 4 women are raped" and employees of domestic violence agencies pushing fraudulent Duluth Model statistics such as the familiar "every 9 seconds..." nonsense.  We've got taxdollars funding these groups through VAWA STOP grants.  (Follow the money trail, anyone?)  We've got journalists unwilling to question the statistics and agendas of the very groups receiving those public monies.  And we've got spineless politicians who are unwilling to stand up to extreme feminist special interests out of fear of being painted "anti-woman".

You are one false accusation away from being imprisoned.  Doubt me?  I'm sure those three Duke Lacrosse players never imagined they would be accused of rape.  Had they not had the financial means of hiring competent lawyers, they might be rotting away in prison right now.  If you think for one minute that the rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters are actually concerned with justice, then I would kindly suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.  It's not black and white that made this whole case possible, it was green.  It's the VAWA monies flowing into their coffers that created this whole "men = evil" environment.

I used to contribute to a local rape crisis center through United Way contributions.  I personally would like a refund.

Main / I am officially an AIDS/HIV denialist.
Jul 31, 2006, 07:38 AM
Quote from: "Seppo"
Another little snippet.

When AZT was first invented - they had no use for it (apart from it's toxicity) so they started giving it away in large quantities to research labs to find a use for it. When it was finally applied to the treatment of AIDS, the cost/value of a 200ml bottle of AZT went up to $250,000!

That has gotta tell you something about the motivations behind the pharma industry.

What it also tells me is that this is exactly what happens when government and business hold hands.

I'll be completely honest, I'm just not sure if HIV causes AIDS or not.  I'll have to watch that video when I have more time.  But regardless of the cause, there are parties out there who profit from AIDS and have no interest in actually seeing it cured.

Pharma companies stand to make lots of $$$ not only from individuals buying their medicines, but also from government grants for "research".  Government stands to profit from increasing taxes to pay for those grants and other types of "research", and individual politicians profit by being reelected to office and gaining positions on various powerful committees and subcommitees.

It's no secret that government is extremely selective in what diseases it decides to fund.   Observe how much money is thrown at breast cancer and contrast that with how much it throws at prostate cancer.  It's a political issue that they know will bring more $$$ in for them.  That's why we have a breast cancer postage stamp with some of the cost going into "research", while the prostate cancer stamp (which is no longer available) never went towards research.

They pick the diseases which they feel will bring in the most money.

The first thing that needs to be done is by erecting a wall separating Business and State, similar to the wall that should be separating Church and State.  Get the government out of business and business out of government.

If AIDS were cured today, there'd be no more need for all these various laws, regulations, taxes, and research grants.  No more AIDS committees and organizations.  No more fundraising drives.  No more symbolic AIDS quilts.  They'll never find a cure for AIDS because they don't want to.

If racism were ended today, there'd be no need for Jesse Jackson tomorrow.  If sexism were ended today, there'd be no need for the N.O.W. tomorrow.  If DV were ended today, there'd be no need for all those taxpayer-funded exclusive shelters tomorrow.  Same principle with AIDS.  AIDS will never be cured simply because too many people stand to lose money and positions of power if it were.
Main / Judas in Germany
May 16, 2006, 09:57 AM
Yesterday while at work I was reading through the recent issue of National Geographic magazine which dealt with the so-called "Gospel of Judas".  I noticed a very interesting comment.  I do not have the article in front of me, but the gist of it was this:  In Germany, it is against the law to name your child "Judas".

Can anyone confirm this?  Is this true?

Granted, I cannot imagine a parent actually wanting to name a child "Judas", but isn't it amazing that a country will outlaw a specific name for a child, yet a parent can have his or her son's genitals mutilated?  You cannot give your son a certain name, but you can have him physically mutilated.
Main / Gonz!!!!
Mar 13, 2006, 04:58 PM
Cool!  Thanks!  I was going into withdrawal due to lack of my Recommend Daily Allowance of Vitamin-G.    :D
Main / Gonz!!!!
Mar 13, 2006, 04:17 PM
What's happening to your blog?  I went there and a few day's posts had mysteriously disappeared, then some of them reappeared.

Everything OK?
Quote from: "bukowski"
This is exactly what libertarians do.  As long as they define their force, as retaliation or, defense, against the force from others, even if that force is not against their physical person, but against their property, their violence (which by the way, is usually through the state apparatus) is a-okay.

That's exactly right.  The difference being that most libertarians (at least the vast majority that I've encountered) don't proclaim themselves to be pacifists.  Physical force most certainly is proper and correct when used in self-defense.  You'll have a hard time getting a self-professed pacifist to agree to that, except that (s)he'll still give the use of force a "thumb's up" as long as wealth is being redistributed and industry nationalized.
Quote from: "gwallan"
I WAS pointing out that violence is a tool used by all societies regardless of the economic systems being practiced.

The point that I am making is that most so-called "pacifists" aren't pacifists at all.  They wholeheartedly support the use of physical force, as long as they get to define the terms of its use.  They only reject physical force when it doesn't accomplish the goals they want.  Then they wrap themselves in peace-loving rhetoric and hold hands while singing Imagine.
Quote from: "gwallan"
Quote from: "napnip"
In fact, pacifism and socialism are polar opposites.  Socialism requires the use of force to redistribute wealth and nationalize industry.  If John Doe refused to let his wealth be redistrubuted or his company taken over, the true pacifistic socialist would be powerless to do anything about it.

As a pacifist allow me to posit that the use of force is one of the cornerstones of our civilisation. We use the threat of state sanctioned violence, force or deprivation of liberty to control the behaviour of individuals. The types of economic sytems we choose to apply do not change this thing.

That's true.  However, the pacifist by nature abhors the use of force.  (Or, at least does lip-service to abhorring it.)  By definition, a pacifist rejects physical force and violence.  Yet, Greer, who is a self-professed pacifist, advocates a system which by definition requires the threat of physical force to redistribute wealth.

That, my friend, is a contradiction.

If one wishes to truly be a pacifist, then let him reject all uses of physical force.  Otherwise hypocrisy is the word of the day.
Main / Court rejects woman's plea on embryos
Mar 09, 2006, 06:28 AM
Notice the bias in the article:

He's being so mean," she said at a tearful press conference, after losing a landmark legal battle to be allowed to use her frozen embryos from an in vitro fertilisation program.

[sarcasm] Oh, well isn't he just a mean-spirited, right-wing Nazi fascist misogynist?  I mean, how dare he prevent her from using her embryos!  It doesn't matter that he contributed 50% of the genetic material, and that they haven't been implanted in her womb yet!  They belong to her!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: "ShakeQ"
GERMAINE Greer wants Australian women to be more outspoken, reject bad female role models, take control of their future and demonstrate modern feminism through pacifism, socialism and environmentalism.

Pacifism and environmentalism are the last things Greer wants.  They are simply tools for her to achieve her true goal:  socialism.  (But at least the article was honest enough to admit she advocates socialism.)

In fact, pacifism and socialism are polar opposites.  Socialism requires the use of force to redistribute wealth and nationalize industry.  If John Doe refused to let his wealth be redistrubuted or his company taken over, the true pacifistic socialist would be powerless to do anything about it.