Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Better than real ones, I suppose.
I heard this on this morning's Weekend Edition, so had to go check it out: Delegate Wants to Ban Vehicle Displays of Plastic Genitals
From the WaPo article:
Maryland Del. LeRoy E. Myers Jr. to truckers: If you've got 'em, you don't need to flaunt 'em.
As the General Assembly debates global warming and the death penalty, Myers (R-Washington) has something else on his mind: the outsized plastic testicles that truckers dangle from the trailer hitches of their pickups.
Ah, yes. Silly, of course. But why post about it here? Because it seems that there may be a bit of religious zealotry behind it:
To some truckers, they are manly expressions of rural chic. But Myers, who says his Western Maryland district is brimming with giant fakes on the roadways, calls them vulgar and immoral -- and filed legislation this week to outlaw them.
"People are making a joke out of it," Myers said yesterday. "But I think it's a pretty serious problem. You have body parts hanging from the hitches of cars. We've crossed a line."
Well, not *real* body parts. Plastic ones. But they scare the children, see. Or make the repressed obsessed. Gotta pass a law.
Ah, if it weren't for state legislatures, where would these people find gainful employment?
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
It's okay with me, as long
It's okay with me, as long as it's only the fake plastic ones they outlaw.
He's barking up the wrong tree
Personally, I'm into banning The Da Vinci Code. It's not so much a tacky book as a steaming pile of grade-A shit.
Gotta agree.
No, not with banning it. I'm not into banning books. But your assessment of it is dead-on. Ugh - bad on *so many* levels...
...and what astounds me (from reading the comments in the above post of mine) is that a lot of Christian faithful think that Dan Brown is on *our side*! Um, no. No thanks. We don't want him. Really.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Perhaps
they could recruit Ashcroft to run around the state taping covers to these deeply offensive items to our Christian-nation morality.
"You better start giving me some inner peace before I mop the floor with you." - Homer S.
or
"Pinky, you excel at random." - the Brain
We have the Freedom to be as tacky as we want
I personally think those things are tasteless, and tacky, but I would never support legislation to ban such dreck. If they ban "truck-nuts", it's a slippery slope to banning "offensive" bumper stickers, etc. What if some bible-thumper takes offense to one's clever atheist bumper sticker, for example...Our police forces have more important work to do than playing nanny.
So while I'd never put one on any vehicle I own, I fully support the right of anyone else to do so.
Personally, I wonder if any of these have made their way over to the present theaters of military operations...I'm dying to see a photo of some of these on an M1 Abrams tank or a HummVee. ;-D
slippery slopes
Usually I don't agree with the use of the "slippery slope" type arguements, on the grounds that it is all too often used as a substitute for a real arguement. Common fundie arguement: but, if we allow abortion, what's to stop euthanasia from becoming legal? And if we allow euthanasia what's to stop other forms of "legalized" killing. Sorry, but the slippery slope arguement looks rational, sounds rational, and in the end doesn't convey anything except that you're against the idea if it's taken to an extreem.
For the rest of your arguement I concur.
Abortion and euthanasia
I've never understood the fundie mindset. On this issue, however, I have tried to put some thought to their position. I never got anywhere but was fascinated with my conclusions. Since this is the internet, I have to share them.
Euthanasia has, broadly, two meanings. It could be killing someone with their consent or killing someone without their consent. There is also the issue of 3rd parties legally appointed to make medical decisions. I'm not going to address all possible situations, just the form of euthanasia commonly called physician assisted suicide. I do not believe it's possible to be logically against both abortion and euthanasia in the form of physician assisted suicide.
Argument against abortion:
A person's life is their own! Each person has the right to self determiniation! You can't go around killing people without their consent!
Argument against physician assisted suicide:
A person's life is their own! Each person has the right to self determination! You can't go around killing people without their consent! I mean, without my consent! Or just not at all! All killing is wrong! Unless God commands it! And you can't say God commanded you! You need some sort of evidence! Actually, forget that last part! Wait, these are supposed to be logical arguments, so forget the last 3 things I said!
I'm really not trying to spark a conversation about whether or not a blastocyst is a person. But if you go ahead and assume that it has the same right to self determination as a fully grown adult, how is it consistent position to be both against abortion and physician assisted suicide?
--
"Ponies are atheists, you know, technically."
- Me
fundie mindset
Fundi arguement against abortion:
"but, fetuses are genetically human!" So's a clone, but wait, you're against cloning (so, would the fundies who are against both cloning and abortion argue for or against the abortion of a clone?). It's true that genetically fetuses (or is it fetii?) are human, but I just can't bring myself to care about a random clump of cells.
Fundi arguement against assisted suicide:
"If you commit suicide you're going to hell, and if you're a doctor and help someone commit suicide than they're going to hell for committing suicide and you're going to hell for murder." Sigh. The old "hell" arguement. It's true that Christians believe committing suicide will land you in hell, for the paradoxical reason that you weren't strong enough to endure the suffering of life so you'll suffer for all eternity. Sympathetic lot eh?
body parts? Tch.
If I wanted to disturb people by hanging fake body parts I'd hang up bloody looking heads, severed hands, maybe a half-eaten baby with maggots coming out of it (that's a bit extreem though). But a penis? That's down right tame. I see it as just a male phase, something men do to prove to themselves they're still men.
Not a penis
a fake plastic scrotum.
Yes, but illegal?
Why do so many people think that their opinions should translate directly into laws?
--
"Ponies are atheists, you know, technically."
- Me
That's
That's my question too Spork...
Where do people get this sense of entitlement?
Typical
Annoying neo-victorians. For whome the sexual taboo is so strong that they wish to criminalise even humerously acknowledging the existance of reproductive anatomy. I am reminded of the recent 'scrotum' book incident, where even using an anatomical term is condemned.