More Lameness

[ravan]

Aww, gee, I'm special! Fuckwit elorie has decided to refer to me by name in her little fief. That means I got to her, pricked her in the ego! I should have saved the comment for posterity! That's a better prize than having a community named after me!

Awww, and she accuses me of conflating '"debate" with "verbal abuse"'. Stupid girl. I wasn't trying "debate" with her, I don't think she has the intellect to comprehend it, much less respond to it in a rational manner. Her knee jerk stereotyping is proof of that, along with her innane "They say *all* the same things...almost word for word...and make the same specious arguments that are either blatantly untrue, make no damn sense, or BOTH." Sorry, but it's only 'the same' if you are unable to consider and comprehend things other than your own narrow, knee-jerk, point of view. So no, I was not attempting to debate with her, I was flaming her. Too bad she's too dumb to realize it.

Furthermore, she is responding to a comment that she did not allow to be seen by anyone else, thus looking even more capricious and insane. ROTFLMAO!

I was wondering if she was smart enough to cut her losses and get back to her regular community business. She's not - she won't be happy unless she thinks she's "won" by having the very last word, and can get all of what she believes are her fans to help. What a little wankette. The "neener, neener, neener" at the end is just classic wank, too.

Dang, I need to filch kshandra's "LOLLERSKATES" icon. May I? Pleeeeease?

BTW, I will probably still read note_to_asshat from time to time, as well as note2asshat. Some of the posts in there are great, prime snark, quintissential flambe. Why? For the same reason I read kittypix and kitty_luff_only - it makes me smile. Why should I let the fact that the moderator is immature and chickenshit bar me from reading fine snark by other people?

Note: this post left public out of fairness. Apologies to those who are tired of the wank stuff.

Comments

Re: So freaking long it's two parts!

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

Ah, we are in agreement here. At laaaast:P!

IMO, being homeless sucks, being homeless with kids sucks worse. And I suspect that this is why the brutal triage exists which prevents childless adults from getting anything (and all but the poorest of the poor from getting any more than a pittance which doesn't even bring them up to poverty level). Because not only does it suck even worse, but the social costs (not just the financial ones) wind up being higher. There is so little allotted for *anyone* anymore, and it's submoronic because the final costs for not providing are so high.

I bet you probably know that the Shrub cut all federal spending for any BC programs that weren't "abstinence only". Including a singularly sane one here in GA which allowed new moms on Medicaid (provided to expectant mothers who were working poor and without insurance) to get birth control for free for two years after the birth of their children. You know, exactly the demographic likely to benefit from self-righteous "abstinence only" lectures. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of this tomfoolery; I just know of that one firsthand.

Re: So freaking long it's two parts!

[ravan.livejournal.com]

Abstinence only - uuuuurgggghlehackspit! I hate that kind of self-righteous bullshit. It's a sick joke, and coupled with BC restrictions and abortion bans it's hypocritical, at best, and a recipe for breeding a generation of discontent, at worst.

I actually end up encouraging people who are ambivalent on the kids question to get sterilized. If they want kids later, they can adopt the kids that the "pro-life", "abstinence only" hypocrites have dumped on the gutted and non-existent safety net.

My own sister, who has turned into a religious right dittohead like her husband, doesn't want real sex ed for her kids. Even though she had the truth about birth control and STDs. She thinks it "gives kids permission". Nevermind that the forbidden fruit is always sweeter to a teenager. I end up incoherent with anger at the stupid every time she comes up with that tripe.

I wish I was really, really rich. I would start a fund to provide BC and sterilization services for *anyone* who wanted it - kids, no kids, young, old. I'd partner with PP, and just provide the finances. Then I'd advertise it in all of the kid hang outs - myspace, LJ, etc, even buy keywords on Google.

Re: So freaking long it's two parts!

[hotcoffeems.livejournal.com]

My own sister, who has turned into a religious right dittohead like her husband, doesn't want real sex ed for her kids. Even though she had the truth about birth control and STDs. She thinks it "gives kids permission". Nevermind that the forbidden fruit is always sweeter to a teenager. I end up incoherent with anger at the stupid every time she comes up with that tripe.

I hear ya. Because we all know that providing a kid with information about BC is going to result in some kid out there going, "Well, hot diggity damn! I was fixing to sign that 'Jesus wants you to wait' abstinence pledge thing, but then I found out about rubbers, and now I can’t wait to go out and get all jiggy with anyone who’ll poke me!"

Providing information does not make people who would otherwise not have sex have sex. And denying access to birth control does not prevent kids from having sex. Particularly if they’ve been filled with misinformation, or given *no* information.

The high school I went to refused to teach sex ed, claiming it would “give good kids bad ideas.” Of course, during my time there, 1 out of every 32 students there was a *parent* (no, I’m not guessing on that statistic). They already had their own bad ideas.