HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Electric Larry » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Electric Larry

Profile Information

Name: Simon Moon
Gender: Male
Current location: Shouting “theater” in a crowded fire
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 04:02 AM
Number of posts: 80,708

About Me

Worship popeye, love Al Green

Journal Archives

Library Girl already IS the only one here.

I'm sorry, but it's time for us to face the bitter truth. We've been her all along.

All of us.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri May 25, 2012, 03:03 AM (0 replies)

So what is the scientifc basis for statements like "disruptions in the flow of consciousness"

Tht might be fine for a zen koan, but its hardly a scientific concept.

One, where is the scientific evidence that consciousness has a "flow?

Two, what constitutes a "disruption" in that flow? Is the person still conscious? Are they anesthetized?

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue May 22, 2012, 02:58 AM (1 replies)

I'm asking for the objective difference between sexual attraction that is non objectifying

and sexual attraction that is.

Specifically, in that paper, the authors state that when objectified, women are treated as bodies. And reduced to parts, whatever that means, although it sounds awfully silence-of-the-lambs-ey.

So, if Objectifico-Man #1 is having sex with the victim of his objectification, he is "treating her as a body". But he's also treating her as an object, and bodies aren't supposed to be objects. But they are. But they're not. And he's thinking about parts of her body, I guess.

If Non-Objectifico-Man #2, the one with the more fulfilling relationship, apparently, is having sex with the partner in the more fulfilling relationship, he's thinking about.. what? I'm gonna go out on a limb, say she's a grad student in economic theory. Maybe as they're having sex, he's supposed to be thinking about her recent brilliant dissertation on the economic impacts to third world economies caused by supply chain disruptions tied to inflated commodity prices.

Something like that?

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat May 19, 2012, 11:48 PM (0 replies)

You really want to do this? Really?





"we have had THREE women TOS'ed from our group over ONE hidden post"


And of course, le piece de resistance:


Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat May 19, 2012, 06:42 PM (2 replies)

Come ON. Have you seen that statue?

It's got a helpless icon of sexualized, objectified, male gaze phallopressed femininity, sexualized curves and all, and on the ground is a laughing pac-MAN (MAN!!!! ) who is quite probably looking up her skirt at the sacred Dworkin of her victimized maidenhood. Or, the round laughing head may symbolize the fragmented, damaged moon goddess, still traumatized by the brutal cosmic sexual assault by the brutes at NASA and their space phallus.

Patriarchy, INDEED.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue May 15, 2012, 12:15 AM (2 replies)

Oh, well, if one blogger somewhere says something, that must be the final authoritative word on it.

The breakdown of MILF is "Mother I'd Like To Fuck". Of course, the dreaded "fuck" is in there, but so is "I'd like to". So it is, essentially, an expression of wanting to have sex. With a woman. Presumably from a man.

Now, I am well enough versed in Dworkio-Mackinnonite dogma and such to understand why, in SOME circles, that is tantamount to an expression of advocating the worst oppression that has taken place, ever, anywhere, in this universe or any other. It's not the vagaries or crudity of the expression, it's that a man is expressing his desire to oppress a woman by putting his evil, oppressive, PIV-implement in her. Whether or not the "like to" implies that this would be an imaginary consensual act of mutual imaginary pleasure (as much as womyn are conditioned to believe that their oppression is "pleasurable" it doesn't matter, because it's implying an oppressive, evil act.

Doubtless we've all figured out that this expression originated with teenage boys, talking about their friends' moms. Which, undoubtedly, has happened a lot throughout history. I suppose one could pontificate endlessly on why it would be more appropriate for teenage boys to use an expression like MILTHSWCNPIVSCIWITWWNDBTPWMASIBGIOIO ("Mother I'd Like To Have Some Womyn-Centric Non PIV Sexual Contact With If The World Was Not Dominated By The Patriarchy Which Makes All Sexual Interaction Between Genders Impossible Or Inherently Oppressive" but realistically, MILF is probably more in tune with the vernacular used by teenage boys.

For the record, the mothers of my friends are all either dead or senior citizens, and while I'm sure they're lovely people, I'm not available anyway.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon May 14, 2012, 05:34 PM (1 replies)

Warren DeMontague is not a man

Warren DeMontague is THE man.

And, he's a puppet, too! How's that for a soooper secret meta meaning! Decipher that one, %#%#^£€£¥¥%s!

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon May 14, 2012, 02:47 AM (0 replies)

It's everywhere you have authoritarian control freaks telling consenting adults what to do.

And it is certainly worst where fundamentalists rule.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:54 PM (0 replies)

I don't "feel" superior, I *am* superior, Jack.

Anyway, you've made it perfectly clear that this isn't about a cogent objection to anything in the cartoon (remember... Your OP?) but rather a vigorous exercise in you grinding whatever axe it is that's not sharp enough to get the bees out of your Ostara/Ishtar bonnet.

(how's that for a mixed metaphor?)

I'm not interested in helping you further in that endeavor.

As for the Tao, work it out yourself. Or don't. The Bible tries to pass off illogical, contradictory nonsense as genuine wisdom, the Tao passes off genuine widom as illogical, contradictory nonsense. The Bible resents ridicule, the Tao DEMANDS it. Which is why its jokes are better.

Chew on that.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:20 PM (1 replies)

Again, it's important to define terms, something many THEISTS seem practically allergic to doing.

People also like to dodge the question by going, "oh, I'm an agnostic". Yeah, I'm agnostic on a LOT of things for which there's no objective evidence; leprechauns, unicorns, the tooth fairy. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out, in a sense. Evidence could come along at some point to tell me that, yes, there is an invisible 500 foot tall orangutan living on my roof.

Even the question, "Do you believe in God", frames a duality pertaining to a singular, objective, mutually agreed upon and at least generally defined entity where none such general consensus exists. Or to put it another way, which "God"? How about you define the friggin' thing before you expect people to say whether they "believe" in it or not?

Is it "very stupid" to say you don't believe in the Greek Gods? The Roman Gods? Quetzlcoatl? Pan? Eris? Ra? Osiris?

I'd like to see the actual Sagan quote, along with context, please.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:46 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »