more fish business

Published by plover on April 5, 2009 in 'baggery, BLAME™, On Beyond Emus and Trollwagon. 27 Comments

There are fish that reside in barrels.

There are other fish that provide temptation to shorebirds to shoot the fish in the barrels.

Apparently, this is just business as usual among fish.

Here is the trail of breadcrumbs left by fish:

OMFG!! fstdt.net is a GOLDMINE. For example:

Quote# 61128

The five divisions of homosexuality are…

The Stockholm (syndrome) homosexual, who was seduced and/or graduated into homosexuality by another, almost-always-older, male. The Effeminate homosexual who over-relates to women, usually due to an absent or passive father, and/or an overbearing mother. The Spotlight homosexual who’s rebelling against manlaw and loves the attention and drama that homosexuality brings. The Vagifearian homosexual who’s terrified of girls/women, usually due to older-female-on-younger-male sexual or physical or emotional abuse. And finally, the rarest of all, the Normalphobe homosexual, who is without any outward signs of homosexuality and doesn’t need or want attention, but can’t stand being sexually normal. Every homosexual is in at least one of these five divisions.

Carl Morris AKA Mantronikk

No seriously, the dude’s name is Mantronikk…

Except he forgot class 6:

Guys who are buried so deep in the closet that they obsess over the various “categories” of gays to the exclusion of thinking about anything else but teh gayz (c.f. Mantronikk)

This trail leads to heteroseparatist.com, home of Mantronikk’s “man”ifesto — version 8.3 (!) — which he is apparently trying to turn into a book, and which details his suffering at the hands of “homofascists” and “homoappeasers” who insist on designating him by inappropriate words like “homophobe”. (This destination was separately arrived at by one Pinko Punko, who seems to have greater resistance to temptation.) Note: Though many wonders are detailed below, many more reside behind that innocent looking link — temptations yet remain.

another counterfeit word from the GLBT community is the word “transgendered” which is ridiculously inaccurate since no human being has ever impregnated a female and bore a child. (Will somebody please tell me that I’m not the only one noticing this?)

So, “no human being has ever impregnated a female and bore a child”.

Well, if we were to presume all those words mean what they mean to most people, then, well, instant fail: the statement would basically imply that no women (who have or will have children) work in fertility clinics, and home artificial insemination by lesbian couples (where the partner not being impregnated has or will have children of her own) never happens. He would indeed be the only one noticing that…

Somehow I don’t think that’s what he meant though. The basic joke seems to be that humans born without a womb don’t get pregnant. (Shocking! Film at eleven!) Also, nothing in his discourse indicates that he’s taking account of fertility clinics. So the description of his world we are left with is one where “human beings” (who are apparently all male) impregnate “females” (who are apparently not human beings). No doubt if I pointed out that this wording is patently misogynist, it would mean that I’m a gynofascist or something.

Plus, we are left with the grammatical oddity of the verb “impregnate” apparently possessing reversible transitivity, i.e. with the possibility that “X impregnates Y” might mean that X’s action with respect to Y results in X becoming pregnant and thus in a position to “bear a child”.

And this isn’t even to mention that he seems to not know the difference between “transgendered” and “transsexual” (big surprise, I know), and apparently thinks male-to-female transsexuals expect to become pregnant. Presumably, because the lives of “females” revolve around being pregnant and nothing else. (Well, this is the same person who apparently needed to come up with the word “Normalphobe” to explain away gay people who don’t fit his stereotypes of gay people.) In what may be considered a small kindness, he does not hint at whether he believes female-to-male transsexuals think they can “impregnate”.

The marvels of biological reasoning:

The “born gay” concept is in direct opposition to the ridiculously obvious pattern of human reproduction. Human beings reproduce sexually. This means that people who say that they were “born gay” are, in effect, saying that nature has chosen to remove their ability to reproduce.

Nature doesn’t do that.

Because every human being ever born has had fully functional testicles or ovaries, and there are no miscarriages. That whole death in childbirth thing? Totally a myth. At least in “human beings” which, as shown above, are never female.

Here is a conundrum:

Wouldn’t a human being that was born without the desire to mate with the opposite gender be able to reproduce asexually like some other species? How can a cockroach be born pregnant and a human be born gay?

The second question seems to show a rather marked lack of imagination, while the first question seems more indicative of an overactive one.

Because of my time and travels on planet Earth, I’ve spoken, at length, to at least one hundred and seventy homosexuals and at least eighty lesbians.

… and each one was so terrifying he felt it necessary to count them?

Gay marriage isn’t like interracial marriage, it’s like consanguineous marriage; like a sterile man marrying his consenting, adult sister. Or a woman marrying her brother because she’s had a hysterectomy. Or a man marrying his mother because she’s too old to bear children.

Or someone marrying a fruitbat for the free kumquats. Or a hedgehog marrying a Bob’s apple fritter because, um, because UC likes both of them.

Isn’t a homosexual calling me a homophobe the same thing as a man calling a woman a lesbian because she won’t date him?

Someone has a high opinion of himself. Don’t worry honey, you’re not all that.

How am I guilty of prejudging homosexuals when I hear about homosexuality up to twelve times (I counted once) a day?

It’s the “once” part I find hard to believe.

And, until I’m actually throwing stones at a gay person, I’m not in violation of the “Do not judge…”commandment of my Lord.

Never let it be said Biblical literalism doesn’t have its conveniences.

Anyone have any idea how to reconcile these two (emphasis added):

A) I won’t associate with a man who has consensual sex with other men.

B) [V]andalism, proactive violence, and economic oppression (like firing or not hiring a gay person), are not a part of heteroseparatism.

Lastly, for those in need of a field guide, a heteroseparatist will say (“with great compassion and great certainty”, mark it well) that “if you are male and over the age of puberty, and you are not solely attracted to the female of our species, you are perverse and self-deceived“, but “would never stand near the funeral or memorial of a gay person with a ‘God hates fags’ sign.” Well, there you have it, a nobility almost approaching that of your average noble.

27 Responses to “more fish business”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

Leave a Reply


three − = 1

What is 99 + 14 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
MATH IT UP, FUZZBALL