Linșarea lui Dianne Carson

9 Responses to Linșarea lui Dianne Carson

  1. polihronu says:

    Pentru cei, ca mine, care n-auzisera de Deanne Carson pina acum.

  2. polihronu says:

    „copilul lor nu este proprietatea lor”

    Asta poate ca ti se pare tie evident, ca esti stingist (haha), dar imi aduc aminte de un dialog cu raposatu’ jiji in care, in contextul povestii cu serviciile nordice de protectie a copilului, el pleca fix de la premisa capitalista a dreptului de proprietate al parintilor asupra copiilor.

  3. dalivis says:

    I’m surprised people like Sam Harris give Ben more than 5 minutes of their time. I would rather give hours to Dianne than a minute to Ben.

  4. dalivis says:

    Eddie, was it our forum that prompted you to talk about Dianne or did you randomly checked out the latest happenings? lol
    I totally agree how Ben tries to masquerade her and misses the point „on purpose”. On the other side, his audience expect this from him so he’s likely caught between a rock and a hard place. Let’s see what Jordan has to say about her. Seems like lots of people expect him to have the last word in everything these days…

  5. danielcirt says:

    Am participat anul trecut la un seminar de parenting în România, și unul dintre vorbitori, Diana Stănculeanu, psiholog, ne învăța despre când să înceapă educația sexuală la copii. Inițial m-a surprins că aceasta trebuie să înceapă la cele mai fragede vârste. Apoi am înțeles aducându-mi aminte tocmai de exemplul pe care l-a dat Edi cu „evanghelistul-violonistul” român care pipăia fetițe. O felicit și eu pe Dianne Carson, și pe Edi pentru acest semnal de alarmă.

  6. Poli,

    Nu sunt stangist (an infantile disorder according to Lenin himself), sunt marxist:

    Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

    The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

    He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

    For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. (Manifestul, capitolul II).

  7. dlivis,

    Short answer, yes. I have been waiting for Peterson’s answer but didn’t happen as far as I know. Appreciate anybody’s helping find it.

  8. danielcirt,

    Din nefericire incepe intr-adevar din prima copilarie prin interiorizarea obsesiilor neurotice ale parintilor in familie si continua prin interiorizarea obsesiilor lui Augustin in biserica. Urmeaza contactul inevitabil in conditiile Internetului cu o cultura hipersexualizata si comodificarea fetisista a sexului. Apoi ai de ales intre talibani si corectitudine politica in razboiul cultural. Vreau sa spun ca ne scufundam tot mai adanc in mlastina.

Lasă un răspuns:

Te rog autentifică-te folosind una dintre aceste metode pentru a publica un comentariu:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google+

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google+. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest sit folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat asta: