Sheer insanity!

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,715
Likes
1,511
#1
Sex offenders including paedophiles should be allowed to adopt, Theresa May told
Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are ‘unfair’ and even convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said.

Theresa May was urged to allow sex offenders to adopt Photo: AFP


By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent
6:00AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
Follow

Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.
In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”

How about buggery, child rape and forced child prostitution? Do we not protect the children from these offenses, as well?
 

Romford Lad

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
31,600
Likes
4,945
#4
Just hold on here a minute ~ it was this Helen Reece that made this statement ~ and like all statements made by the 'liberal' minded element in our society ~ called on the government [in the shape of the Prime Minister] to have the law changed. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Mrs May saying that they should, or even questioning why they aren't allowed ~ so with great respect my friend, to target the PM with a statement made by someone else is just a tad wrong ~ your post should be aimed [in my humble opinion] at the person who actually wrote the article...one Helen Reece.
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,715
Likes
1,511
#5
That's exactly what my post said. Helen Reece, a reader at Law at the LSE. not Mrs. Theresa May.
 

Romford Lad

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
31,600
Likes
4,945
#6
Yes my friend ~ I agree ~ it was the large pic of the PM with all you said [all totally right] but the set up leads people to think things like the post above me [not that our present government needs any help from me, they appear to be able to dig a big enough hole all by themselves...LOL]
 

stevent222

Jokeroo Immortal
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
260,722
Likes
8,758
#7
Oh so it's more like this women Helen Peece is like our Senator Elizabeth Warren that said: “If women need to be raped by Muslims to prove our tolerance, so be it. Then thank goodness for Planned Parenthood.”
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,715
Likes
1,511
#8
Oh so it's more like this women Helen Peece is like our Senator Elizabeth Warren that said: “If women need to be raped by Muslims to prove our tolerance, so be it. Then thank goodness for Planned Parenthood.”
No Steven, its like using Fauxcahauntus' quote under a photo of Hillary Clinton.
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,715
Likes
1,511
#9
A popular health information site has started using the word "front hole" instead of "vagina" in an effort to be inclusive of trans and non-binary people. The LGBTQIA community has been advocating for this gender-inclusive term for a while now.

Like most normal Americans, I read this news and immediately adjusted my vocabulary accordingly. I will especially make sure to remember the new terminology when I'm wearing my Front Hole Hat at the Women's March next year. But I fear this change does not go far enough. There are many other parts of the human body, and almost all of them could be a source of grave offense to someone. Eventually, every hole, appendage, and organ will need to be renamed. To get the ball rolling, I have come up with new names for five of the most archaic anatomical features:

1) Looky holes

Located just above the talk pocket and the smell stick, and right in between the hear flaps, the looky holes are an important aspect of the human body for those who identify as having vision. But sight-challenged individuals have long felt excluded by the divisive and probably racist term "eyes."

It should be no problem to adopt more progressive language and incorporate it into our science books as well as our Valentine's cards and love songs. For instance, the classic ballad "I Only Have Eyes For You" will sound just as romantic — even more so, in my opinion — when we change it to "I Only Have Looky Holes For You."

2) Side danglers

In more savage times, we would use the word "arms" to describe our side danglers. But "arms" has always been troubling, especially as it has become associated with guns. A gun-toting person may say he is "armed," or, if he is toxically masculine, he may say "look at my guns" in reference to his arms. The whole interplay between guns and arms is extremely problematic. Besides, not everyone has arms.

Just remember to call them side danglers from now on. And if you must engage in such primitive competitions of brute force, remember that you are not "arm wrestling" — you are "dangler tussling."

3) Pointy graspers

Who among us hasn't been reduced to tears at the word finger? "Finger" is aggressive, divisive, and irrevocably tied to "giving the finger." Anytime someone mentions "fingers" around me, I feel like I have been cussed out and I begin to weep uncontrollably.

Also, our finger-normative culture has given rise to the false and alienating idea that everyone has 10 fingers. In fact, some people have 11 fingers, or 5 fingers, or no fingers. I have 10 biological fingers but I identify as having 27. As long as we stick to the word "finger," most people will not be able to get past their obsolete, 10-finger-centric biases. Replacing "finger" with "pointy graspers" should help solve that problem.

4) Trunk stems

It is simply amazing that people still use the word "legs" in 2018. Even worse, they may say that a certain thing "has legs" to denote endurance or longevity. This is extremely traumatizing to those who have one leg or no legs.

It also has the effect of otherizing any individual who might identify as a mermaid or a snail. The term "trunk stems" has the advantage of descriptive accuracy without all of the elitism and injustice tied up in the word "legs."

5) Skin holder

The word "body" is perhaps the most objectionable. "Body" is sexist because it is used by men to crudely rate and judge women. They might say a woman has a "good body" or a "bad body." They might say a transwoman has a "man's body." It has gotten to the point where most women cannot hear someone utter "body" without collapsing in fright.

Besides, what about those who identify as water vapor or wind or transdimensional spirits? I met someone recently who identified as the color blue. Folks in the body-less community are always being made to feel "weird" and "different." Because of our inherent bigotries, we can't help but afford a certain elevated status to those people who have bodies. I think we could remove much of the body-privilege in our culture if we de-emphasize the importance of bodies by calling them mere "skin holders." That's all a body really is, anyway. It is just a forum for your skin and your holes, however they happen to be assembled and however you choose to use them.