?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

On morals and Google-whacking

I don't understand people--especially social and religious conservatives.

My friend's husband believes that nudity is morally wrong. It's bad, it's sinful, it's an abomination in the eyes of God, and any woman who would be photographed without clothing is a dirty whore.

He also beats his wife.

What kind of malfunction do you have to have, what kind of bad wiring inside your head does it take not to see the problem here? Why is it, exactly, that so many people seem to believe that morality begins and ends with sex?

Take Charles Keating, for example. Remember him? He served in the Cabinet under President Regan. He testified before Congress numerous times in his attempts to have magazines like Playboy banned in the United States, and he was also on the Meese Commission on Pornography, the group headed by Attorney General Edwin Meese to try to put pressure on retailers to stop selling Playboy magazine. Keating called himself an authority on morality, and lectured tirelessly on the subject.

He also embezzled billions of dollars from Lincoln savings and Loan, triggering the collapse of the entire S&L industry that cost the taxpayers staggering sums of money.

So: God doesn't mind if you beat your wife. Stealing is fine. But nudity? Oh, my, no, THAT is a sin!

Goddamn, is it just me, or do these freaks have some kind of moral and intellectual blindness so profound that they're complete moral cripples, unable to figure out even the most basic things on their own?

At least A. was able to get safely away from her abusive situation, which is good.

In other news, I successfully Google-whacked for the first time tonight, and did it in only seven tries! I RULE!

What is Google-whacking, you say? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's a sport where you go to www.google.com, the Web's most comprehensive search engine, and you attempt to find two English words that appear on only one Web page (that is, you type in two English words and get a results page that says "Results 1-1 of 1"). It's harder than it sounds; Google's archive contains literally ,i>billions</i> ofWeb pages, and every defined English word occurs on countless millions of them.

My Google-whack? "telomere tankful"


Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
altenra
Feb. 28th, 2002 08:23 pm (UTC)
What kind of malfunction do you have to have, what kind of bad wiring inside your head does it take not to see the problem here?

I was just discussing this with my mom five minutes ago! Not regarding morality, but regarding simple reasoning. Ugh, it makes me sick.

And Google-whackage sounds great...I've done that a few times without knowing I was doing it. =P
(Deleted comment)
tacit
Mar. 1st, 2002 10:02 am (UTC)
"So obviously they do it because they have neurological damage, right?"

I wish I could believe that, really I do. But the only explanation I can accept is somewhat harsher: Evil exists. There are some people who are simply bad people, either because they know no better or because they simply choose to be.
roaming
Mar. 4th, 2002 05:19 pm (UTC)
"do these freaks have some kind of moral and intellectual blindness so profound that they're complete moral cripples, unable to figure out even the most basic things on their own?"

um, well, yes. Exactly. Doesn't everyone know that? Thre is no logic. Evil simply exists. And it's inside.

[groan]
progress
Mar. 1st, 2002 01:10 am (UTC)
googlewhacked on the first try, Franklin:

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicavolcanoconiosis vagina

Longest realistically pronounceable word in the english language can't show up in too many places.

--Niko
tacit
Mar. 1st, 2002 10:04 am (UTC)
Hmm. The rules fo Google-whacking do say "common English words." Now, granted, there's no definition for the word "common," and you could argue that any word that's in common usage will never be successful, but nevertheless I submit that one of your words isn't "common." Which word it is will be left as an exercise to the reader. :)
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )