Self-Awareness, @AmandaMarcotte? Irony? Some Logical Coherence, Perhaps?

Posted on | April 18, 2014 | 129 Comments

Amanda Marcotte is one of the most wicked people in America today. Her bloodthirsty enthusiasm for abortion is such that she does not hesitate to imagine aborting her own hypothetical offspring:

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me
want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails,
I am totally having an abortion.”

What kind of deformed personality could write such thing? The same kind of deformed personality who could become a campaign blogger for Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards — hired, evidently, on the recommendation of Edwards’ wife — then get unceremoniously dumped after her controversial record becomes an issue. And then, when it is exposed that the candidate who hired and dumped her was a shameless adulterer, well . . . crickets chirping.

Zero recognition on Marcotte’s part that her “progressive” values made her the dupe of a hypocritical charlatan. No second thoughts are possible, because her career as a Professional Feminist is so important to her that the slightest flinch — any mere overt hint of uncertainty about her commitment to The Sacred Progressive Cause — would impair the status and prestige she has striven so hard to attain.

Years of humiliating herself on behalf of The Cause have extinguished whatever spark of conscience Amanda Marcotte may ever have possessed and her career of public self-degradation seems, also, to have made her blind to her own contradictions. So it is that we find the bloodthirsty abortion fanatic pretending to have moral qualms about the death of a fictional TV character:

That is the genius of this episode [Sunday’s episode of the HBO series Game of Thrones]. It serves up one example after another for you to judge of people sadistically enjoying the pain and suffering of others, and right when you’re in a full snit of self-righteousness, it puts you in a position to do exactly what you just spent the last hour judging others over.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that it’s different, because Joffrey’s death is an objectively good thing, especially for the kingdom. But you’ll recall that Ned Stark advised his sons at the beginning of the series about the importance of not taking killing lightly. This, George R.R. Martin is arguing, is what war does to people: It makes them callous and petty and revenge-minded, which is why peace never lasts and violence begets more violence. Last night’s episode was a firm reminder of the fundamentally pacifist nature of the series.

Or, perhaps, “a firm reminder” of the ultimately amoral worldview that informs Game of Thrones. Not long ago, my friend Ali Akbar stayed a week at our house, during which I became temporarily addicted to Game of Thrones. I’d heard all the buzz about the series, but the professional necessity of having cable TV — not only to watch the news, but also because high-speed Internet service is part of the cable package — does not justify paying for HBO. Ali, however, has the “HBO Go” package, so that he could download all the episodes, and I watched the first two seasons in the span of a week.

The infamous “Red Wedding” scene that wiped out the Stark clan (except for Ned’s bastard son) was pretty much all the evidence you needed that there is really no “moral to the story.” One might argue that it is realistic to see the noble and courageous perish at the hands of the depraved and sadistic, but if the author had in mind some didactic purpose, the lesson taught is a very bad one.

Grant that Game of Thrones is eminently watchable, that the character development and plot twists are fascinating. Grant all this, and I still say the series is a poisoned confection, an invitation to the kind of puerile paganism that one might find among adolescent “goths” attending a Renaissance Fair or science-fiction convention.

A certain tolerance of moral ambiguity is necessary to film criticism, which is one reason why most evangelical Christian writing on the subject is so wretched. If your idea of film criticism is to count the cuss words and recoil in horror at any overt expression of sexuality, you should consider another line of work. It’s one thing to advocate wholesome, uplifting, family entertainment; it’s another thing to be permanently indignant that all movies are not wholesome, uplifting, family entertainment. For example, why wouldn’t pro-lifers embrace The Terminator as one of the most pro-life movies of all time?

The whole point of the story is that Sarah Connor, an otherwise unremarkable young woman from Los Angeles, must survive because she is destined to give birth to the future hero John Connor. And (spoiler alert) she becomes pregnant with John because of the time-traveling future soldier who has returned to the 1980s to save her. Spare me the Church Lady sermon about unmarried sex — how can a Christian possibly miss the pro-life theme here?

Well, we have wandered far afield from the topic of Amanda Marcotte’s tone-deaf reaction to the death of Evil King Joffrey. The point of that digression, however, is that effective criticism must be able to perceive in a dramatic work themes that are embedded in the subtext. Marcotte says she has read the books on which Game of Thrones is based, and if what she sees as most important is a pacifist message, I’ll take her word for it that this is the authorial purpose — and ultimately, a bad lesson.

Yes, war is a terrible thing that everyone should strive to avoid. However, as history as amply demonstrated, the pursuit of peace at any price — a cowardly refusal to risk war on behalf of principle — can lead to awful consequences. “Peace through strength” is not merely a slogan, but the only way that war can be deterred. But contra Marcotte, I think the author of Game of Thrones sees this.

One notices in Game of Thrones echoes of Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli, both insightful scholars of statecraft. And there is, certainly, a sort of moral framework evident: Characters who become obsessed with revenge ultimately destroy themselves. Yet weakness toward an enemy — a failure to utterly destroy a rival, and also to destroy any of his allies who might avenge him — always exposes a character to sudden and unexpected destruction. So a viewer can extract useful lessons from Game of Thrones, even while acknowledging that (a) it’s chiefly enjoyable as escapist fantasy entertainment, and (b) the series is ultimately a moral cesspool, where all the characters are fundamentally bad people in one way or another.

Here I think of film noir, my favorite movie genre.

You can’t be one of those League of Christian Decency types and a film noir fan, because the protagonist is invariably a deeply flawed man — “Oh, no, Mildred! He’s smoking a cigarette!” — who finds himself in a moral dilemma, usually involving a Woman of Questionable Virtue. The protagonist in film noir finds himself in a position where there are no “good” options, where survival requires him to do things that are unethical or illegal, because his own weakness or stupidity has led him into a situation where he is hopelessly trapped by evil.

Game of Thrones could be seen as a kind of medieval film noir, I suppose, but that’s about the best you could say for it, and Amanda Marcotte’s reading of King Joffrey’s death as a moral indictment of the viewer’s hypocrisy is . . . well, it’s weird:

The audience at home is made to endure Joffrey’s ugly and mean-spirited play where a bunch of little people do a comical re-enactment of the War of the Five Kings. Joffrey and his supporters chortle horribly at the deaths of their enemies for many long minutes, many more minutes than you would ever have to endure in most TV shows. After awhile, you start to squirm and actually feel the discomfort of Tyrion, Sansa, and the Tyrells at this unseemly display of pleasure in the deaths of [their] enemies. You can’t wait for it to end. It’s really terrible, all this gloating over death.
A few minutes later, half the people who were squirming over Joffrey’s unseemly pleasure in the deaths of his enemies are running to Twitter to celebrate Joffrey’s pathetic and painful death.

One can only view this criticism as evidence that Marcotte is one of those whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron. Can’t she see Joffrey’s death as a fate that he brought upon himself through his own sadistic cruelty? I haven’t seen the episode in question, so I don’t know if I would be gleefully cheering Joffrey’s death, but no one could dispute that the world of Game of Thrones would have been better off if Joffrey had been killed much sooner. But Marcotte’s reading of the “discomfort” at the way Joffrey & Co. relish the deaths of their enemies seems to miss the fundamental question: Who has done wrong to whom?

In what sense has Joffrey ever been a victim of wrongdoing? Hasn’t Joffrey been a reliable perpetrator of wrongdoing? Why then should anyone wonder that we would be uncomfortable at watching him “chortle horribly” at the re-enactment of his wrongs? And why should we feel guilt at our enjoyment of seeing Joffrey finally receive the kind of violent death he has inflicted on so many good and innocent people?

We need not be surprised, however, by Amanda Marcotte’s inability to make obvious moral distinctions, her blindness to the difference between sadism and justice. Marcotte’s lack of moral insight begins with herself: How can such a murderously fanatical advocate of abortion be expected to discern Good from Evil?

It never even occurs to Amanda Marcotte that there is anything ironic in her position. “Then again, I could see how she could be in simpatico with an 18 year old psychopath.” Indeed, indeed.

<br />

Category: Abortion, Culture

Comments

129 Responses to “Self-Awareness, @AmandaMarcotte? Irony? Some Logical Coherence, Perhaps?”

Phil_McG
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:38 pm

Julie, this just proves my point.

J.R.R. Tolkien would have used an antique fountain pen that had been lovingly handcrafted out of English willow and Mithril by master artisans, then painstakingly engraved with Sindarin runes before its razor-sharp nib, forged from the shards of Narsil, was gracefully dipped in ink made from the blood of Smaug himself.

His less talented would-be imitator George R.R. Martin uses a sharpie.

Mr Martin is such a copycat he even looks like a hobbit.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:41 pm

If I were forced at gun point to choose the “pro choice: versus “pro life” position, I’d end up slouching over to the pro choice side.

But with major caveats.

For one thing, one cannot be intellectually honest about the logic and philosophical arguments over abortion without granting that, for all practical purposes, the unborn are fully human.

The smart way to go about reasoning is to pretend that each unborn child is a fully-grown adult.

There are just reasons a woman can give regarding the refusal to lend her body to that human, and the government needs to stay as far from that decision as possible. That’s the only reason I am still nominally pro-choice

But the choice to abort must not be allowed to be a form of basic birth control, like it is in the inner cities, and among far too many “feminist” women.

That’s definitely as evil and repugnant as any statist deciding who must be chained up and forced to gestate.

Bottom line is the only way it will ever be solved is when both “sides” understand that the typical proponents are selling pure, recycled false dilemmas in support of radical positions few want.
Ben Franklin
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:47 pm

Whoever PZ is he, she or it is wrong right off the bat. If you assume an unborn child or a fetus is a human being (which is what he/she/it is trying to postulate without being able to clearly articulate it) then there is already a moral distinction that puts it in a superior position to the mother… namely that it is both innocent and dependent upon the mother who created it for its well being. It is morally superior. Outside of the rare instance of rape, the mother chose to participate in the act that created the child and is thus responsible for its well being from that point forward. It’s not like the child decided to take up residence in her womb like some sort of vagabond scavenging for a warm place to sleep who isn’t particularly scrupulous about trespassing.

You don’t get to create a life and then destroy it because it is inconvenient, even if it imposes nine months of hardship upon you. There is no compromise there and there is no moral equivalence. I could find a baby on my doorstep tomorrow and I would have no moral right to kill it even if there was no one else whom I could give it to who would care for it. It would be my responsibility and moral duty to care for it regardless of any personal hardship such as having to miss Game of Thrones, or purchasing formula. The woman would be wrong to destroy the fetus she created — if it is 100% her moral equivalent as PZ postulates. There is no moral ambiguity there unless you are evil.

PZ then goes on to have a bit of trouble on various other fronts as he/she/it tries to elide over the fact that human development is a continuum. We aren’t talking a few dozen cells at the point when most abortions occur. We can argue about when development has reached the stage where we wish to accord the new being the same rights as existing beings, but PZ is intentionally being a prick about it and misleading the people who are reading his/her/its argument by only talking about the very earliest days of development. He rants against how misleading pro-life signs are but then engages in the same sort of shenanigans himself.

PZ just isn’t bright enough to be opining about the ignorance of others. And I say this as someone who is not religious and is ambivalent about abortion as an issue. Clearly infanticide is wrong. Also it seems reasonable that aborting an embryo is something short of murdering a child. PZ seems incapable of making this distinction, which either means he/she/it is either being disingenuous or is just a garden variety idiot. Either way, this is one of the least convincing and most poorly reasoned arguments I have seen. I cannot imagine it being persuasive to anyone on either side. Perhaps it has been taken out of context?

I would also like to point out that whether a human life is valued more or less than the life of a mouse is not dependent upon the complexity or stage of development of the human. There is some point where the nascent human being is still less autonomous and complex than a mouse, or dog, or monkey, but that does not mean we can kill it because it has yet to pass that hurdle. My newborn infant is likely less autonomous and intelligent than PZ’s mouse, yet infanticide is still one of the most heinous acts known to man. PZ’s argument does not allow for this. He applies his reasoning to an embryo but allows no distinction in it that would give a different outcome for an infant.

As always, the argument over abortion comes down to what constitutes human life. Every other point (tendentious idiots like PZ aside) is extraneous. I am just not sure we are wise enough to determine what the exact criteria, or the exact moment we are looking for is.
Anon Y. Mous
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:52 pm

I agree with just about everything you say, except for the following:

So a viewer can extract useful lessons from Game of Thrones, even while acknowledging that (a) it’s chiefly enjoyable as escapist fantasy entertainment, and (b) the series is ultimately a moral cesspool, where all the characters are fundamentally bad people in one way or another.

The Starks are mostly moral people. They are not without their flaws, but they are portrayed as people who are doing their best to behave morally in a very brutal world. The parents also strive to raise their children to be moral.

The only exception is the youngest daughter, Arya, who in the aftermath of her parents’ murders, is turning into someone who is very willing to murder anyone she sees as an enemy.
Wombat_socho
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:57 pm

Beat me to the punch. Most medieval fantasy worlds are nice, clean disease-free places like Tolkien’s Middle Earth, and GRRM completely destroys the trope – although I would argue that “A Song Of Ice And Fire” is in fact SF and not fantasy.
Wombat_socho
April 18th, 2014 @ 6:58 pm

Have you actually read any of Martin’s work? From your comment, I would guess not.
Wombat_socho
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:01 pm

When he was a young writer, Martin was capable of very concise writing. (I particularly recommend Fevre Dream and After The Festival.) He seems to have developed the logorrhea common to successful genre authors who nobody dares edit.
Anon Y. Mous
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:08 pm

Do you have a science based explanation for the nature of the seasons in that world? Why are some winters / summers years long? Does it still take 1 year for their world to revolve around their sun, and if not, where did they come up with the concept of a year in that world? What would a year even mean if it is not related to the changing of the seasons? I haven’t seen it addressed anywhere in the books or the TV series, and it seems like the most obvious starting place to try and figure out the nature of that world.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

Thanks for those! I have a pile of those sorts of books. Tad Williams, for example. They are good for propping things up, and squashing bugs, too. Also they probably spur sales in coffee houses for people trying to speed read through to the end.

Although I have to give Williams huge props on like, the best title evar, with “The Dragonbone Chair.”
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:13 pm

THIS.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:15 pm

Circles within circles.
I think that pretty much covers it.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:16 pm

The Left is Joffrey.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:18 pm

For me it was always, ‘polishing my King Snake’ – I was heavy into the Blues.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:20 pm

I have only seen the first four episodes of Season I, but the Saga struck me as a modern version of old Nordic Myths. Brunhilda slept with her half-brother, if you recall.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

‘Build my gallows high, baby’.

-Robert Mitchum, Out Of The Past

Also: ‘You’re like a leaf that the wind blows from one gutter to another’.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:30 pm

And people like you, ultimately, will have no problem herding Jews into gas ovens again.

See: http://theothermccain.com/2014/04/17/irs-scandal-smoking-gun/#comment-1344619738
Rosalie
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:37 pm

You make a good point. Then they could stop talking about having an abortion. But I guess they like to talk about having an abortion. It makes them feel good.
Rosalie
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

Lefties do not have to be exceptional; and they usually aren’t. They just have to spew hatred.
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

Read Glen Cook if you haven’t.
Phil_McG
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:50 pm

Wombat, you’re right. I haven’t actually read any of his work.I liked Tolkien when I was a boy, but as a man my view on new works in the Fantasy genre echoes Hugo Dyson’s reaction to yet another frickin’ elf.

I have absorbed enough information about Game of Thrones through cultural osmosis to know there’s a midget in it.

I’m not midgetophobic. I liked the It’s a Small World ride at Disneyland. But I prefer my midgets to have orange skin, green hair, and do choreographed song and dance routines imparting judgemental messages about obese children.

I did not buy a fancy 32 inch CRT television to watch a midget solving mysteries or fighting dinosaurs or whatever the hell Game of Thrones is about.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:51 pm

Man, last night I had to dump so many of the kinds of folks who wrote that crap. Claimed to be supporters of Luap Nor, too.

They just can’t keep the mask on, it seems.

“…in the pay of Israel…”
“…taking orders from Israel..”
“…Jews control all the boards of big Corporations…”

And on and on it went. Somedays I feel like we’ve set the wayback machine for 1935.
Cal Quelus
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:53 pm

When I look around and see who’s attacking our sacred Bill of Rights, I find Michael Bloomberg, Cass Sunstein, and Steve Cohen.

Mr. Sunstein attacking our Bill of Rights:
http://youtu.be/Oh9kDnVsuMA?t=35m22s

Mr. Cohen attacking our Bill of Rights:
http://youtu.be/1WcM3P-Gmh8?t=28s

When I look around and see who’s actively attacking Christians, I find the likes of Bill Maher, Dan Savage, Mikey Weinstein, Arie Perlinger, and Mark Potok.

And I am supposed to ignore the blood of the thousands and thousands of men who gave their lives for our sacred Constitution so as not to offend those openly and actively waging war against it?

I don’t think so.

Their war against our sacred Constitution must cease.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:53 pm

Yeah, I keep seeing “free HBO” weeks on our satellite service, and I just have to laugh. I’m more likely to watch MTV.

And I wouldn’t watch MTV unless someone paid me a LOT of money.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:54 pm

And when she sung…
Phil_McG
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:56 pm

The vikings were always getting up to shenanigans. The pointy helmets must’ve made them horny.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

Oh yeah!

Do you have a Gris-Gris bag and did you go down to the crossroads?
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:01 pm

Oh look, he spotted the 2% Jewish population in the crowd of Constitution haters!

How many Chritistians did you have to push out of the way to find those guys?
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:02 pm

I saw that below. I’ll definitely add ‘im to the list, thanks!
Cal Quelus
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:07 pm

Here’s the list I’ve seen floating around; how’s yours look?

Liberalism’s Intellectual Vanguard
– Gyorgy Schwartz (Soros)
– David Axelrod
– Mark Potok (SPLC)
– Noam Chomsky
– Cass Sunstein
– Peter Orszag
– Paul Krugman
– Michael Bloomberg
– Ezekiel Emanuel (Obamacare Architect)
– David Coleman (Common Core Architect)
– Robert Reich
– Bernadine Dohrn
– Louis Michael Seidman
– Andrew Stern (SEIU)
– Stephen Lerner
– Fox-Piven
– Lois Lerner
– Sandra Korn
– Arie Perlinger (Anti-Christian Bigot)
– Bill Maher (Anti-Christian Bigot)
– Dan Savage (Sodomite Activist)
– Mikey Weinstein (Anti-Christian Bigot)

Ideological Ancestors
– Howard Zinn
– Saul Alinksy
– Karl Marx
– Lev Bronstein (Trotsky)
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

I couldn’t make myself start that series. Especially when I was younger and had to live on a very tight budget. You could get the latest issues of Doctor Strange and Thor, and one or two “hard SF” books for what those babys cost.
Cal Quelus
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

It is an undeniable fact that, within the US military, the war against Christians has been spearheaded by Bolshevik ideologues Mikey Weinstein, Arie Perlinger, and Mark Potok.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:43 pm

Helpful hint: everyone here knows about Cass Sunstein and Common Core.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:45 pm

Boring anti-semite troll.
Julie Pascal
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

It proves nothing at all.

I honestly don’t understand anyone who trashes a whole genre. Yes, I know, fantasy/sci-fi does attract a lot of odd people, and certainly neo-pagans and wiccans… so I’ll give Stacy a pass and what you said didn’t make me mad or anything but sometimes a person just has to say waitaminute… there is nothing wrong with decorating with pewter dragons (just as there is nothing wrong with enjoying your Thomas Kinkade print). Game of Thrones might not be what you like, but it’s not poorly written. I don’t feel like I’m missing anything by not reading it but that doesn’t make me a more refined and cultured person. And actually, Tolkien isn’t a fabulous writer or story teller either just because he did it first.

For the record most of what is on my walls is artwork my mother made, but I do have “hobby” stuff on my office walls including an extremely kitchy poster of Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton.

Because it’s *fun*.
Cal Quelus
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:55 pm

The unjust taking of a person’s life is murder.
Julie Pascal
April 18th, 2014 @ 8:58 pm

I wonder that you might have thought that Evi or I aren’t entirely familiar with the argument?

Also… when a fetus sneaks it’s little pink bean self up behind a woman and leaps up her vagina I’ll admit she didn’t freely chose to have it there.

The clear answer, BTW, to any woman who finds herself experiencing an unwanted pregnancy is “no, women clearly do not have autonomous control of their bodies and getting rid of the fetus after the fact will not change that one bit.”

An abortion doesn’t make a raped woman not-raped, and an abortion doesn’t make a woman with no control over her body or reproduction suddenly in control.

“I get to dispose of this creature because of where it lives, under my authority, by my will” is a disgusting old argument for men beating their wives and children.
Cal Quelus
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:09 pm

That’s rather presumptuous. With the growing global reach of this erudite media source, there are plenty of people who are just beginning to read through it.

As you may know, one of the most important tactics of psychological warfare is repetition. The other is that of demonizing your adversary. The adversary, in this case, being those who wage war against our sacred Constitution. Hominids like Louis Michael Seidman:

Did our forefathers shed their blood at Normandy, Guadalcanal, and Khe Sanh only for us to lay down our weapons and surrender our Constitution to the likes of Michael Bloomberg, Louis Michael Seidman, and their 30 pieces of silver?

I think not.
Quartermaster
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

You bought a CRT? How quaint.
Quartermaster
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

PZ Myers is one of the most odious people you will ever have the opportunity to meet. It is an opp you would be well advised to pass up.
JeffS
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:23 pm

GRRM is a prolific writer, including quite a bit of science fiction and alternate history. The GofT is just his latest gig.
K-Bob
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:27 pm

Okay, totally O/T, but hey.

If you wanna see what New York is returning to under DiBlasio, check out these pics from the Kojak days. You know, before Giuliani took over:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/83967378/?autoplay=true
maniakmedic
April 18th, 2014 @ 9:42 pm

Wouldn’t surprise me if that were true. Which makes these women pretty freaking evil in my book.
Kirby McCain
April 18th, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

I knew you’d take exception to those remarks. Tolkien wrote about elves, dwarfs and dragons so anyone else writing about those things is a copy cat?
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

No to the former, but, yes, I went to The Crossroads – and ended-up telling the Devil to go back to Hell and leave me alone. All musicians eventually go there, as you well know.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 11:13 pm

The latest research dispels the horned helmet myth. One thing the series Vikings gets right is the headgear [and, often, lack thereof] worn by the Northmen.

Sidefact: Many Ukrainians are of Viking stock.

And, of course, the Normans [trans: north men] who conquered England in 1066 were not French, but Vikings. Normandy was created for Hrolf Ragnvaldsson [aka: Robert of Normandy, aka Rollo (portrayed as half-brother of Ragnar Lodbrok in the TV series)] by the French to keep him from raiding the rest of France.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 11:14 pm

Me too, K-Bob.
Bob Belvedere
April 18th, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

One might say that anyone wanting to live in New York back then had a Death Wish.
Adjoran
April 19th, 2014 @ 12:22 am

As a human being, though, it is by definition a “person” and someone must take that designation away, be it government by law or the principals in each transaction.

Just because the law takes away a person’s rights does not make them not a person.
Adjoran
April 19th, 2014 @ 12:27 am

I heard he curls up and cries if you look at him too long.
K-Bob
April 19th, 2014 @ 1:58 am

Yep. Anyone not getting out now has the same.