SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • April 2007
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for April, 2007

Right-Wing Religious Death Porn

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 30, 2007


My Comments on the issue of publishing highly graphic images of aborted children.Those images are also unethical – disrespectful of the children in question. What’s more, they only have one purpose – to play into the viewer’s emotions. While I agree that abortions shouldn’t be the norm, there actually are instances where they are needed.

Besides, there is a huge difference between abortion and the death penalty, which I am also against – the death penalty is a collective impersonal decision, while an abortion is a individual and personal decision, that is between the woman and her G-d. Instead of getting on our moral high horses, we should leave any judgements of right or wrong to G-d as we really don’t know the whole truth behind a decision to have an abortion.


“That someone seeks to salve their own conscience by denying the utter horror of the reality of abortion and saying it’s only between God and only one other person.”

Whose conscience are you talking about here, [name of opponent] – as far as I am concerned, there is only one conscience involved in the decision to have an abortion, and that is ultimately the woman deciding to have the abortion – and that is between her and G-d, no matter what you say about it.

Who’s been denying anything?

Not me. It does however seem to me that you are denying the fact that abortions are sometimes needed for the social, emotional and physical survival of the mother. But then of course, perhaps you do not consider the woman particularly important, so that in a scenario where there is need her life does not take precedence over that of an unborn?

“Sorry Dov – but you’re speaking utter crap…”

So it’s utter crap to expect people not to use highly sentsitive images as leverage in their attempt to force people to bend to their religious whip? As Ketutar said, there really is no need for this kind of “Death Porn”, other than to rile up emotions and manipulate people.

“There is NOT only One person and God involved.”

Ultimately it is between the Mother and G-d, and only He can judge the reasons, circumstances and emotions involved – did I say that I think she will not be judged by G-d? No, I did not, but I also believe that G-d is far beyond you and me in Compassion, Understanding and Mercy, so that His Judgement is Absolutely Fair.

“By your words YOU are disrespecting those babies’ Fathers also.”

Actually, I am not disrespecting the Fathers – but when all is said and done, the fathers have very little to say about their unborn children, as they are not the one physically pregnant. I also thouroughly believe that a father should have a say, and if you had read what I have said on the abortion issue f.i in HRN you would know this.

“AND condoning the actions of the other people who put it in their own hands to kill those babies, for the mothers. That’s NOT One person and God.”

Well, the medical professionals are ultimately there, not to kill those babies, but to assist the mother so she won’t have to have the abortion done with a coat hanger in a back alley and most likely become a second casualty in a tragedy. Most countries have a “conscientious objector’s ” clause in their abortion legislation, so that medical personnell can make a decision not to perform abortions or any other medical procedure their beliefs object to. I know this is not the case in the US – but that can easily be remedied through amending the legislation.

“Do you also want to deny the Holocaust?”

Now you are being ridiculous, and you know it…

Then another guy comes in, post a enlarged version of the thumbnails I had originally objected to – and this self-righteous, hypocritical and fundamentalist (yes, he is a “born-again” Xian) moron says:

“Putting a Face on The DebateWhen so many argue in favor of partial birth abortion, a picture is worth 10,000 words. It is only right for all to see just what it is that is being debated. It is important to show just what it is that pro-choice is asking to choose.

This is a very sanitised photo of the aftermath of a Partial Birth Abortion. This is what so called freedom of choice is choosing every day.

If someone is pro-choice, they should be able to look at this photo with pride and declare, yes that’s what I stand for. That is an example of my personal values and my life view. They should be proud of such a photo.”

The thing with this self-righteous toad is that he is completely missing my point, which the other guy wasn’t, he just disagreed with me, but this guy makes it about abortion as such, which it never was when I came into the thread.

Which is very clear from this comment:

“Why is it OK to post pictures of dead dogs, cats, warpictures, dead adults, concentration camps, etc ? BUT not dead babies? Does it offend and upset peoples emotions? So do the others!”

Yes, [name] they do – which is why I am opposed to those too – what have I been opposing the most in Human Rights Network? Posting of highly graphic and insensitive Pictures that does nothing to further the point of a discussion except rile people up and manipulate them emotionally. In fact the people most prone to do this in HRN have all been blocked partly because they use these tactics.

Now, you not need to agree with me – and I do not need to agree with you – after all this is a discussion forum, chances are that people will at one point or other disagree with each other.

Just as it is your right to think the way you do, and share that with the rest of us, so it is my right to present my opinion – and for whatever it’s worth – that was all I did. I addressed the issue of those pictures in my first post – I didn’t address the issue of abortion, because that I have no issue with. I took issue with the images posted, because they are highly graphic, and because as such they are intended to manipulate emotions, just like any other pictures of the same graphic nature.

Now, the first guy – here in green text, is a nice guy who just happened to disagree with me – the other one, here in red text is a self-righteous schmuck with a schlemiel the size of an ant…a typical representative of the Religious Right. (A)mmmoral Majority.

Shalom

Posted in Human Rights | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

How to Make Enemies and Irritate People

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 25, 2007


As much as I enjoy debates in Care2, I have noticed that certain people tend to engage in tactics that cause the debates to degenerate into slugfests instead of allowing them to end on a civil note. Here are some examples of what they do: 1. Lie constantly. It does not matter if what you say has no basis in fact whatsoever. As long as you can make a counter to any statement of fact or logical argument that someone makes, you will appear to be on an equal level with your opponent.
2. Never bother to provide a basis for your assertions by linking to a credible source of information or providing a reference regarding a matter that is not common knowledge. Of course, if you are already doing No. 1, then No. 2 comes naturally.
3. Engage in the practice of what I call “parroting and nitpicking” constantly: Making an exact copy of your opponent’s arguments and answering them point by point exactly instead of stating a new point of your own to move the debate forward. This has two effects: It makes you appear equal to your opponent, no matter how dumb your statements turn out to be, and it encourages your opponent to respond to you in the same way, taking the debate into an endless circle.
4. When you are accused of lying, just call your opponent a liar as well.
5. Engage in frequent sarcastic insults to annoy your opponent.
6. When your opponent complains that your tactics are unfair or dishonorable, accuse him of not really wanting a debate.
7. If you know your opponent has a short temper, wait until his patience has run out and he has gotten angry and then take advantage of the situation to torture your opponent still more!
8. Never admit you are wrong about anything. Always accuse your opponents of not thinking or of being stupid, brainwashed, ignorant, mindless, etc.
9. Use religion as a excuse to justify your extreme position. If your opponent is not of the same religion, use that fact against him.
10. Keep the debate going as long as possible until your opponent gives up in frustration, allowing you to claim “victory” later.
11. Last. but not least, CREATE NEW PROFILES TO INFILTRATE AND THEN DISRUPT GROUPS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED FROM, THUS VIOLATING THE GROUP OWNER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS!

If you use these tactics repeatedly, you may appear very successful in debates. But you will also gain the contempt of most people who have a sense of honor and ethics. And that contempt for you personally may also lead to a rejection of your position as well, even if the position has some truth in it.”

Orignally authored and posted here by Dale Husband

My comment to this Blog:

“May I add: Play Tag, i.e have a couple of friends in the wings who can pick up the relay stick when you have been beaten to a pulp by the opponents, ideally you would have them start the argument all over or bring up irrelevant, off topic points, such as the looks of your opponent, his ideas about dogs, or a complete distortion of his points/arguments.”

Ketutar’s Comment on the same Blog:

“Point 9. should be “ideology” instead of “religion”. Political ideologies are used the exact same way.Also, I’d like to add the “change subject” point. When you have nothing to say, when the opponent has proven your points faulty or lacking, when it’s obvious that your opponent is correct, winning etc. change subject.

Also, use of support – gather your friends around to give you more “credibility”. “Betty here understands exactly what I’m saying, why can’t you?” Friends can also be used to confirm your ideas, and it doesn’t matter if the ideas are relevant or not to the Issue. “Yes, Tim, it IS raining. YOU are absolutely correct!”, or as distraction – have a couple of friends flood the thread with kittens and irrelevant discussions.

If the opponent isn’t distracted, accuse her of being persistent like a pit bull… (Or “Coming back to the main topic in a psychotic manner”)

Balthasar Gracian said that if one cannot get rid of one’s vices, one needs to turn them into virtues – and one strategy is – if you cannot diminish the opponent’s virtues, turn them into vices…”

Shalom!

Posted in Debate, Freedom of Speech, Human Rights | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Lock up the victims and let the perps run rampant…

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 21, 2007


“It is nice that the university is taking care of us, but on the other hand it’s absurd that our freedom is being limited because of some militant groups,” said Liah Ganeline, a second-year medical student from Israel.

In a normal, democratic country the authorities don’t obey the interests of these groups, but on the contrary protect people from them,” she told The Associated Press by telephone.” Moscow Dorms Shut Before Hitler Birthday

It has become rule that Right-Wing and Left-Wing Extremists are “protected” by the Law Enforcement, not their victims, not only in Russia, but generally all over Europe. Despite the fact that f.i Neo-Nazi Groups are forbidden in some European Countries.

The incident 2007 in Moscow is not an isolated event.

Honestly, I am all for people exercising their democratic human rights – but to lock up the potential victims of such exercise is simply ridiculous. It sends the massage that those Extremists are in the right, that their message is sacrosanct, not the lives and activities of those who they would violate.

What is surprising here is the apparent lack of knowledge of history displayed by the Associated Press and Central News 13 in this article – Santayana’s “He who does not learn from History is condemned to repeat it.” comes to mind. One should be able to expect historical accuracy from one the World’s largest News Agencies:

“Russia has seen a marked rise in racism and xenophobia over the past several years, with nonwhite or dark-skinned residents, foreigners and Jews bearing the brunt of the violence. According to the human rights center Sova, which monitors xenophobia, 53 people were killed in 2006 and 460 others were injured in apparent hate crimes.”

I am sorry AP – where have you been the last 200 years? It cannot have been on planet Earth. It’s not like anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia has ever NOT been rampant in Russia. The Jews in Russia have always been discriminated against – the masses of Jewish immigrants to the US is plenty of evidence of that.

We shouldn’t forget the millions and millions of any kind of dissidents, foreigners, “…nonwhite or dark-skinned residents, foreigners and Jews…” imprisoned, murdered and harrassed during the rule of the Soviet Dictators.

A long history of condoning xenophobia and anti-semitism in the sly doesn’t work as a very good excuse for continuing the practice, even if what used to be Politically InCorrect has now become Politically Correct and therefore more visible. Visibility only confirms it.

When I read this kind of News I begin to appreciate the Swedish Law Enforcement practices of surrounding any demonstrations by the Extreme Right or Extreme Left, leading them on a pre-set route – under the pretense of “protecting them from opponents” – if that is what they(the Extremists) want to believe, as long as they are kept in check away from decent folk, that’s all ok with me *lol*.

Shalom!

Posted in Russia | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Emotional Comparison creates connotations that are untrue.

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 9, 2007


“GENITAL INTEGRITY IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are genitally/sexually mutilated (circumcised ) in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. (Source, AAP document)”

Oh.

You forgot this part:

“The AAP, though it does not recommend Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), allows and teaches it’s members to perform this procedure. In contrast, the AAP strongly opposes any form of female genital mutilation.”

Could the reason for this “discrepancy” in “values” be due to the fact that there is a huge difference between the two? That the doctors actually know that there is a huge difference both in the matter of procedure, context and consequences?

“The risks of male genital mutilation, commonly referred to as Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), far out weighs any very questionable benefits. Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child’s best interest and well-being.”

Male circumcision can be compared to having your ear pierced (something hoards of parents do to their toddlers daily), or having you ear lobe snipped. While female “circumcision” can be compared to having the tip of your tongue cut of and your lips sewn together.

A doctor performing a male circumcision will use clean instruments, local anastethics and his medical knowledge and skill to make sure that the child is not harmed, something that is not present in case of female genital mutilation.

RIC, does play a role in the appearance of cervical cancer in women who have sex exclusively with circumcised men – it is almost non-existent, instead of being banned, it should be given an appropriate secular context as something that increases the health in a future partner. Because it is here the problem arises – when there is no reason, no context and no meaning to a rite, it becomes harmful to the individual.

To target male circumcision in general will eventually also target the two religious bodies/communities that has male circumcision at the very core of their beliefs – Judaism and Islam. Both those communities have a safe and stable context in which circumcision has a place and a meaning. That is why few Jewish and Muslim men question or feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised. Of course they exist – the question is why they exist. I’d say that those who are Jewish or Muslim, who feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised, have not been given a proper context – basically, they were not raised within a coherent Jewish or Muslim context, some times they don’t even know that they are Jewish or Muslim, and then of course it becomes completely imcomprehensible why they are circumcised.

When words are seemingly equated – i.e Female Genital Mutilation is called “circumcision” and Male Circumcision is called Male Genital Mutilation the truth suffers and people promoting such equation play into the emotional area, rather
than telling the truth.

Shalom!

Posted in Judaism | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: