Author Topic: New dark age

New dark age
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2022 »
If it is unacceptable for me to speak at Harvard on British poetry and philosophy because I am a feminist, then I invite Harvard to purge its libraries and museums of all those who hold views unacceptable to Harvard. If I am to be silenced, then why do the tomes and treatises of history’s innumerable sexist, racist, homophobes still sit on Harvard’s hallowed shelves and continue to be cited with reverence? Harvard should cleanse them all and leave nothing but the purity of empty space.

Perhaps Harvard should invite this academic.
Lavery writes about the ‘panic’ over trans women (ie, blokes) using women’s toilets, with gender-critical types pushing the bigoted idea that trans women are ‘erotically fixated on the idea of women urinating’. Then, literally in the next paragraph, he says: ‘[But] going to the bathroom is kind of sexy? At least, I have occasionally found it to be so.’ My man, this is why they don’t want you in their loos.
Oh wait, they have.


  • .
« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2022 »

Ye though she walked through the valley of the death of reason, she was not banned.

See also.

New dark age
« Reply #42 on: May 05, 2022 »


yes, here we are again

New dark age
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2022 »

Wikipedia claims this particular innocent man was born on the 16th, Encyclopaedia Britannica

and other sources say the 19th. It doesn't really matter. He's just here because he had a thing or two to say about abortion. (No, not Billy – though he is an authority on Catholicism.)
Pope Innocent XI, born Benedetto Odescalchi, made considerable contributions to the Roman Catholic approach to embryology by condemning several propositions on liberal moral theology in 1679, including two related to abortion and ensoulment. His rejection of these principles strengthened the Church’s stance against abortion and for the idea of “hominization,” meaning the presence of human qualities before birth.

Next you'll be telling me men can have periods.

It looks like New Scientist would approve. Does this represent a new consensus between religion and science?

. . .

The good guys:

The bad guys:

Yes, sometimes it really is that stark.