TTY: Prince, RIP

Link from an anonymous person:

Prince, RIP - true-to-you.net
24 April 2016

Although a long-serving vegan and a strong advocate of the abolition of the abattoir, neither of these points was mentioned in the one hundred television reports that I witnessed yesterday as they covered the enchanted life and sad death of Prince. The points were not mentioned because they are identified as expressions against e$tabli$hment interests, therefore we, mere galley slaves, aren't allowed to know.
Prince has influenced the world more than is suspected, and somehow the life of his music is just beginning, and he would be thanked not only by humans but also animals for living his lyrical life as he did. Humans, you see, are not the world.
Meanwhile, on the same day that Prince melts away in physical form, London and England remain two very different countries, and in London the news media (under tyrannized instructions from Buckingham Palace) are informing the world that Her Royal Slyness is celebrating her 90th birthday, and we are assured that all of the United Kingdom is celebrating a monarch who has "served" (that is, served herself, not the people) for over 60 years. There is no evidence of celebrations, and in fact there are hushed reports of national indifference. In this mental maze the marrow of the matter has been grasped by everyone: monarchy is the new anarchy. It is the face of white supremacy, social repression, tyranny, oppression, thought control, big stick control, minority rule, dictatorship, and, on the streets beyond SW1, unfairness. All that can be honestly celebrated on Elizabeth's 90th birthday is the reality that she is the end of the family line. What else could her point be?
Prince, who made something of his life as opposed to having fortune handed to him, is far more 'royal' than Elizabeth 2, and he will be mourned far more than she, for she could never make herself loveable, no matter how many paid and promoted non-stories flood the newspapers of the world. The laughing gulls of Buckingham Palace will never allow you to forget who wields the stick. And, of course, we know very well what gulls tend to do on the people below.
Prince is the royal that people love, whereas Elizabeth 2 was thrust on the people who have never been asked whether or not they want her.


MORRISSEY
22 April 2016.





UPDATE Apr. 27:

From terrancestamp:

Much has been said about the Prince and Morrissey's connection. Because of my deep love of Morrissey, I would bore anyone who would listen with my admiration for him. One fateful day in March of 1993 the radio station in Rome Georgia of all places, made an announcement that Prince would be doing an instore at Turtles Rhythm and Views in Atlanta. Because this is right at the time that Prince and Morrissey were supposed to be working together I decided to make the 2 hour trek to wait in line for a glimpse of the man and a possible autograph. Somehow I managed to get in with a copy of my Morrissey fanzine. When it was my turn I approached Prince about Morrissey and ask if they were going to work together. He said and I quote, in his very shy soft voice "Were just thinking about it". He then took a copy of my fanzine and signed my CD. So let the rumor mill be no more. Yes, they were thinking about working together. So they must have had some type of communication. Now only Morrissey can tell the rest of the story. Attached are some photos from that lucky day! Prince went on to do a mini concert for the people who waited in line that day. He did 3 songs from his "Purple Rain" period. Amazing treat from this Superstar to perform for a couple hundred people in a record store. He certainly had my respect from that day forward.

prince2.jpg prince1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Comments

I have to point out an important distinction. We should differentiate between 1) homosexual Catholics who attend church and participate in everyday aspects of Catholicism and 2) homosexuals who do the above and wish to get married to a same-sex partner in a Catholic church.

Nothing is stopping homosexuals from functioning as equals. The church only discriminates with regard to performing marriages, not with regard to whom it provides services to. So it is in no way infringing on equality. If this was the case, we would also have to say that the Catholic church is required to marry Jewish couples or anyone else of another religion. This might not seem like a massive distinction but it is significant.
The only difference is hypocrisy, on the part of the Church and the homosexuals who choose to support an institution that would deny them equality. You're wrong about the Church having to marry Jewish couples and I covered that. It is legal to have clubs and organizations that are for members only. It's legal to have a club for men and not allow women, if there is a membership. It's legal to have a golf course and not allow black people, if it's not open to the public. My friend was married in a Catholic church. He was a severely lapsed Catholic, and the girl he married was not Catholic. I think they did it there for the sake of his mother. The point is that they had to join the Church, go to pre-counseling with a priest, and do a few other requirements before it was allowed. You can't just go demand to be married. Obviously Jewish people don't want to be married in a Catholic church, but they could, if they became Catholic.

Now with regard to skin colour, it is not a comparable. Skin colour would be something that could result in immediate discrimination and therefore the denial of services because the person could be immediately recognized as "not welcome," which would not be the case with an "appropriate colour" homosexual. The only distinction made between homosexual and heterosexual churchgoers is with respect to marriage. Otherwise, sexual orientation is irrelevant and probably unknown (to the institution, at least). As would be the case if a Muslim couple decided to attend mass conspicuously. They would be allowed but if they wanted to get married, the church would not be able to comply because of religious views.
What is the difference between discrimination based on skin color and discrimination based on sexuality?

You make my point for me. Yes, everyone is allowed to attend mass. They are not allowed to take communion but that is done on an honor system, so they could lie and participate in every aspect of the service. But they can't be married. Why? Because they don't actually follow church doctrine. SO why are they members of the Church? This is the whole point.
 
Last edited:
The only difference is hypocrisy, on the part of the Church and the homosexuals who choose to support an institution that would deny them equality. You're wrong about the Church having to marry Jewish couples and I covered that. It is legal to have clubs and organizations that are for members only. It's legal to have a club for men and not allow women, if there is a membership. It's legal to have a golf course and not allow black people, if it's not open to the public. My friend was married in a Catholic church. He was a severely lapsed Catholic, and the girl he married was not Catholic. I think they did it there for the sake of his mother. The point is that they had to join the Church, go to pre-counseling with a priest, and do a few other requirements before it was allowed. You can't just go demand to be married. Obviously Jewish people don't want to be married in a Catholic church, but they could, if they became Catholic.


What is the difference between discrimination based on skin color and discrimination based on sexuality?

You make my point for me. Yes, everyone is allowed to attend mass. They are not allowed to take communion but that is done on an honor system, so they could lie and participate in every aspect of the service. But they can't be married. Why? Because they don't actually follow church doctrine. SO why are they members of the Church? This is the whole point.
I tried to make sense of it but ultimately you are right in the last paragraph there. There is a certain incompatibility between traditional Catholicism and homosexuality. But then again there is a certain incompatibility with regard to any religion and plenty of aspects of modern society. That's just kind of the nature of things but it's not an equality issue.
 
What is the difference between discrimination based on skin color and discrimination based on sexuality?

You make my point for me. Yes, everyone is allowed to attend mass. They are not allowed to take communion but that is done on an honor system, so they could lie and participate in every aspect of the service. But they can't be married. Why? Because they don't actually follow church doctrine. SO why are they members of the Church? This is the whole point.
Again, not to pick nits so to speak, but I have a problem with the use of the word "discrimination" as applied to the State vs. the Church. As for the State, and in the matter of race, I think everyone can agree that slavery was an abomination and a stain on our country's history. It took a federal law and subsequent war between the states to settle the matter. We are now in our infancy of working on similar laws to allow for the "civil union" or "marriage under law" for homosexuals so they are afforded the same rights under the laws of the land as that of heterosexuals. I believe at some point the civil union of homosexuals will become as accepted in our society as the right to own slaves is unaccepted.

As for the Church, I have made my point in previous posts. I could be wrong but I have never seen racial discrimination applied to the sacrament of marriage within the church. Marriage in the eyes of the church and some would say the Bible is between a man and a woman. Whether black and white, Asian and Indian, etc. It is a holy union of a religious order that is integral and interwoven in the teachings of the church. In other words, it is more than simply putting rings on each other's fingers and wishing a couple to live happily ever after. I can't think of a better example of the need for separation of Church and State as it relates to the issue of marriage in the Catholic church.
 
Last edited:
A
Whoever you are..you're quite the arse

I hate this "Anonymous" stuff. It emboldens asshats
asshats dont need to be anonymous as its just as easy to make a bunch of accounts just for the sake of being an asshat only then they can do it under the umbrella of a character and gain attention thinking they are funny and even make it look like other users who are just fake accounts cheering them on. in the end anonymous or not it wont stop people who just want to harass from harassing. fyi though there is think an ip hashtag thing to help distinguish between anons for the sake of keeping comments straight
 
Again, not to pick nits so to speak, but I have a problem with the use of the word "discrimination" as applied to the State vs. the Church. As for the State, and in the matter of race, I think everyone can agree that slavery was an abomination and a stain on our country's history. It took a federal law and subsequent war between the states to settle the matter. We are now in our infancy of working on similar laws to allow for the "civil union" or "marriage under law" for homosexuals so they are afforded the same rights under the laws of the land as that of heterosexuals. I believe at some point the civil union of homosexuals will become as accepted in our society as the right to own slaves is unaccepted.

As for the Church, I have made my point in previous posts. I could be wrong but I have never seen racial discrimination applied to the sacrament of marriage within the church. Marriage in the eyes of the church and some would say the Bible is between a man and a woman. Whether black and white, Asian and Indian, etc. It is a holy union of a religious order that is integral and interwoven in the teachings of the church. In other words, it is more than simply putting rings on each other's fingers and wishing a couple to live happily ever after. I can't think of a better example of the need for separation of Church and State as it relates to the issue of marriage in the Catholic church.
This shows where interracial marriage was illegal in the US and when those laws were overturned. It was also in the 60's that the Mormons allowed blacks to be ministers.
screenshot-en wikipedia org 2016-05-04 16-19-45.png
 
This shows where interracial marriage was illegal in the US and when those laws were overturned. It was also in the 60's that the Mormons allowed blacks to be ministers.
View attachment 35259
Valid. And yet men are priests and women are nuns, and there are no women in professional sports such as football and baseball, but they just allowed for women to enlist for combat rolls in our military. It is all a shifting of public opinion I guess that determines what changes are made and when or if at all. The good news is that things will hopefully continue to become more inclusive throughout the US and the world. Time will tell...
 
Valid. And yet men are priests and women are nuns, and there are no women in professional sports such as football and baseball, but they just allowed for women to enlist for combat rolls in our military. It is all a shifting of public opinion I guess that determines what changes are made and when or if at all. The good news is that things will hopefully continue to become more inclusive throughout the US and the world. Time will tell...
There's nothing wrong with men and women filling different roles, on average, though. We have different physical and practical strengths and weaknesses. The one point I have to make here is that the Left tells us that men and women being equal means they have to fundamentally change everything including their biology and personality to become exactly the same. That ain't reality though. Men and women are equal but different and our differences should be embraced not castigated.
 
There's nothing wrong with men and women filling different roles, on average, though. We have different physical and practical strengths and weaknesses. The one point I have to make here is that the Left tells us that men and women being equal means they have to fundamentally change everything including their biology and personality to become exactly the same. That ain't reality though. Men and women are equal but different and our differences should be embraced not castigated.
Individuals are different. When you say "men" are different than "women" you are talking about abstractions and that makes the statement meaningless. Men are different than other men. No two are exactly the same.
 
Individuals are different. When you say "men" are different than "women" you are talking about abstractions and that makes the statement meaningless. Men are different than other men. No two are exactly the same.
Of course. But there are average differences between men and women that make it more likely based on sex for the manifestation of certain traits, on average, for men and women respectively. Sex does influence measurable differences between the aggregate of men and the aggregate of women and of course from there individuals make choices and differ in those choices; those choices certainly being influenced by biological factors even though the Left wants us to believe that everything is socially constructed, which is nonsense. Certainly biology combines with social and cultural environmental factors in shaping individuals.

So in order to let men and women make choices on an individual basis, we certainly have to acknowledge all of the factors that make up those individuals and let them make choices on an individual basis without gendering everything and shaming men who exhibit typical male behaviour, which is the norm in modern feminist discourse.

That's a reason I'm not fond of Morrissey's "I'm Not a Man." Sure it was cool in the 60s for women to say "fuck men, we can do whatever we want" and rightly so. But that has turned into a very miserable ideology in modern times which makes it en vogue to tell men that their personalities and behaviours are inherently flawed or inferior and that they (all men, indeed say feminists) must change to meet the feminist ideal.

It's all very tiring and it shows us that despite how successful the original noble feminism was, some folks are addicted to that drug called "perpetual victimhood" and now need to seek out "micro-aggressions" and castigate men for being men in harmless and chivalrous ways rather than feminists embracing the opportunity they have today, celebrating the victories of previous generations, and moving on to productive lives and perhaps even striving to help women in countries where they really need help to escape more oppressive conditions than Western women have ever seen in history.

If feminism is still relevant, it would be best served to direct its energies toward the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Of course. But there are average differences between men and women that make it more likely based on sex for the manifestation of certain traits, on average, for men and women respectively. Sex does influence measurable differences between the aggregate of men and the aggregate of women and of course from there individuals make choices and differ in those choices; those choices certainly being influenced by biological factors even though the Left wants us to believe that everything is socially constructed, which is nonsense. Certainly biology combines with social and cultural environmental factors in shaping individuals.

So in order to let men and women make choices on an individual basis, we certainly have to acknowledge all of the factors that make up those individuals and let them make choices on an individual basis without gendering everything and shaming men who exhibit typical male behaviour, which is the norm in modern feminist discourse.

That's a reason I'm not fond of Morrissey's "I'm Not a Man." Sure it was cool in the 60s for women to say "fuck men, we can do whatever we want" and rightly so. But that has turned into a very miserable ideology in modern times which makes it en vogue to tell men that their personalities and behaviours are inherently flawed or inferior and that they (all men, indeed say feminists) must change to meet the feminist ideal.

It's all very tiring and it shows us that despite how successful the original noble feminism was, some folks are addicted to that drug called "perpetual victimhood" and now need to seek out "micro-aggressions" and castigate men for being men in harmless and chivalrous ways rather than feminists embracing the opportunity they have today, celebrating the victories of previous generations, and moving on to productive lives and perhaps even striving to help women in countries where they really need help to escape more oppressive conditions than Western women have ever seen in history.

If feminism is still relevant, it would be best served to direct its energies toward the Middle East.
No, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "the average man" except as an abstraction. So when you discuss things using terms like "men" and "women" and assigning traits to them you are dealing with abstractions.
"The Right" if such a thing can be said to exist, wants us to believe things are "as God planned," more or less. And this is the root of the problem you are talking about when you talk about the need for human rights, not "feminism," but equal rights, in the Middle East. And frankly, everywhere else.
You have to examine your own Belief Systems (BS) as much as you examine the BS of others or you're just the other side of the coin spouting a different flavor of nonsense. You see yourself, judging by your writing, as a victim of "The Left" and you see "The Left" as some kind of single entity, when in fact it is countless individual people with different viewpoints and motivations, just as "The Right" is not a unified thing.
 
No, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "the average man" except as an abstraction. So when you discuss things using terms like "men" and "women" and assigning traits to them you are dealing with abstractions.
"The Right" if such a thing can be said to exist, wants us to believe things are "as God planned," more or less. And this is the root of the problem you are talking about when you talk about the need for human rights, not "feminism," but equal rights, in the Middle East. And frankly, everywhere else.
You have to examine your own Belief Systems (BS) as much as you examine the BS of others or you're just the other side of the coin spouting a different flavor of nonsense. You see yourself, judging by your writing, as a victim of "The Left" and you see "The Left" as some kind of single entity, when in fact it is countless individual people with different viewpoints and motivations, just as "The Right" is not a unified thing.
Feminists claim that feminism is about equal rights though. At least we can agree that that is no longer the case.

No I really don't think the terms "left" and "right" are entirely useful but for the sake of simplicity here I use them as if they are bipolar. I shouldn't have to explain that though; we should all know that things aren't black and white and "the average" only represents "most people" to a certain degree (which it does) but yes, not all and not fully. I don't mean to disparage individual differences but you must understand that I am referring to biological differences that make men and women fundamentally different in a number of ways.

The traditional right is meek and incompetent. I'm anti-establishment.

If you want to look at it a different way, there is left or right and authoritarian or libertarian and one can fall somewhere on the spectrum of each of those two measures. The ideal, of course, is moderation.

The establishment left is an authoritarian mess that aims to control and censor us and make us all the same just the same as the old authoritarian right aimed to. This is what I take issue with.
 
Last edited:
Feminists claim that feminism is about equal rights though. At least we can agree that that is no longer the case.

No I really don't think the terms "left" and "right" are entirely useful but for the sake of simplicity here I use them as if they are bipolar. I shouldn't have to explain that though; we should all know that things aren't black and white and "the average" only represents "most people" to a certain degree (which it does) but yes, not all and not fully. I don't mean to disparage individual differences but you must understand that I am referring to biological differences that make men and women fundamentally different in a number of ways.

The traditional right is meek and incompetent. I'm anti-establishment.

If you want to look at it a different way, there is left or right and authoritarian or libertarian and one can fall somewhere on the spectrum of each of those two measures. The ideal, of course, is moderation.

The establishment left is an authoritarian mess that aims to control and censor us and make us all the same just the same as the old authoritarian right aimed to. This is what I take issue with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski
 
http://www.newsweek.com/gene-simmons-reflects-bowie-prince-deaths-457851?piano_d=1

Gene Simmons: David Bowie's Death Was Tragic, Prince's Was Pathetic

Gene Simmons is happy to be alive. “Every day I wake up and I never take it for granted,” the legendary Kiss frontman says with conviction. At 66, the rock star is a similar age as recently deceased musicians David Bowie—who died at 69 in January—and Prince, just 57 at the time of his death in April. But if any man can defy the Grim Reaper, it’s Gene Simmons, armed with his unbridled, and infectious, joie de vivre. “I’ve always been delusionally upbeat and positive,” he adds.

“Bowie was the most tragic of all because it was real sickness,” Simmons tells Newsweek. “All the other ones were a choice.” Even Prince? “His drugs killed him. What do you think, he died from a cold?” (Prince’s body was found with prescription painkillers in his possession; however, his longtime lawyer denied he was “drugged up,” calling allegations of addiction “foolish.”)
 

I arrived to the same conclusion some time ago. Thanks, I didn't know his theory. But you have to understand 4 or 5 languages (and their cultures) like he did, to realize that. Maybe that's the true cause of wars and disagreements in humanity. Not as much because of the different languages. It's by the different processes of abstractions. It's very interesting because that theory could be used to promote a true "science of peace".
 
A
I can relate to the upbeat bit. To be fair to kiss as a whole the other guy apologized for genes statement profusely
 
"malicious oppression archeologists" - I'm curious if this is your own term or does it come from some website?

I'm curious if you have any evidence that anyone called dozens of bakeries before finding one that wouldn't make a gay wedding cake. I'm not arguing. I'm just curious if this is an accepted belief in some circles and how that came to be.
FYI since you asked...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-hoax-after-accusing-whole-foods-of-gay-slur/
 
Top Bottom