User Profile: Balthazor


Member Since: March 04, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [5] April 29, 2016 at 11:46am

    I was raised under the assumption that if you assaulted a cop you could expect to get the crap kicked out of you. Different times, I guess.

    Responses (1) +
  • April 29, 2016 at 11:18am

    That is the entire basis for DUI laws. Most people can make it home perfectly fine while under the influence, but it’s on the chance that they don’t that we arrest them.

  • April 28, 2016 at 12:05pm

    Well, as this thing goes “viral” perhaps the nanny state liberals will decide OMFG SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!!!

  • [3] April 28, 2016 at 11:57am

    “One of the first things that comes to mind is objectification and idealization of Western beauty, which are values I would like to believe the University doesn’t want to perpetuate,” she added to the Times. “As a student of color who looks nothing like the student in the poster, this feels very exclusive.”

    Time to nuke all the universities from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

  • April 28, 2016 at 11:10am

    The only thing I don’t get is why, when a child is in a car, the law mandates they be harnessed into a car seat like an astronaut going into space, but plopping the same child onto the back of a motorcycle is apparently perfectly ok.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] April 28, 2016 at 11:03am

    You’re right, men probably already sneak into women’s restrooms. The difference is, Target is now inviting them in. The won’t have to sneak anymore.

  • [12] April 27, 2016 at 11:31am

    Wow, look at how she flails those sausages around!

  • [5] April 26, 2016 at 2:42pm

    Wow, what an incredibly stupid and pointless video.

  • April 22, 2016 at 2:27pm

    @mrsmmah – that’s maybe the silliest argument I’ve ever read. So because porn isn’t shown in family-friendly environments, that proves it’s harmful? That’s just absurd. It does prove that porn is deemed not suitable for viewing by children, but anyone with a brain already knows that. The question at hand is whether watching porn damages the brain, which the article above provides scant little actual scientific evidence for.

    Aside from being a silly argument, I noticed the little ad hominem you tossed in there. My opinion can be dismissed as I’m clearly just afraid my “stash” will be taken away. Please.

  • [33] April 22, 2016 at 2:05pm

    That might be ok except that over the years the crimes we’ve declared as felonies have gone well beyond what felonies are supposed to be. Felony level crimes were supposed to be the worst crimes imaginable: murder, rape, arson, stuff like that. But over the years, in an effort to look “tough on crime”, politicians have made all kinds of crap into felonies which just shouldn’t be.

    Also, the idea of the felony was that at some point, after a few decades or so of being a law-abiding citizen, the felon could apply to have their felony status expunged. But again, these days any governor who’s expunging large numbers of felons would be seen as “soft on crime” and would likely be kissing his political career goodbye.

    So these days, a 20 year old kid who engages in some stupid property crime can find himself a felon for the rest of his life. 30 years later he can be the most upstanding citizen imaginable but he’ll still be one of those evil felons. It’s not supposed to be that way.

  • [-1] April 20, 2016 at 4:04pm

    As I said, moral arguments are one thing, and a thing that I’m not exactly referring to. What I am saying is that this article was merely a moral argument disguised as science. And again, to this “porn changes the brain”, that’s coming from the same type of “science” which insists that SUVs change the climate. Sure, watching porn causes bio-chemical changes to the brain. So does watching literally anything else. Feelings, thoughts, emotions, and yes arousal, are all bio-chemical changes in the brain. It would be like getting all panicked over the fact that putting gas in your car causes a fire in your engine.

  • [-1] April 20, 2016 at 4:01pm

    Maybe, I can imagine some music being awful enough to leave one’s brain a smoking black hole. But more to the point, nothing is going to convince me that porn has some kind of magically devastating impact on the brain that no other stimuli has. That harkens back to the same kind of “science” which used to say that masturbation caused blindness.

  • [-1] April 20, 2016 at 3:56pm

    “You can stop lying as this is not what they do.”

    You’re right actually, references to the Muslim god are just fine. It’s mostly just the Christian god that they have issues with.

  • [6] April 19, 2016 at 3:04pm

    This is just evidence that intelligence and reason are not prerequisites to be a federal court judge.

  • [2] April 19, 2016 at 3:03pm

    The difference is that transgender people are today’s special flower for which our hearts should all bleed.

  • [26] April 19, 2016 at 2:11pm

    Oh the irony. A group which fights to censor any and all references to god, religion or prayer from the schools is crying about their pet cause being censored from the schools.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] April 19, 2016 at 1:40pm

    Furthermore, no woman has a “right” to get pregnant, no more so than does a man have a “right” to impregnate a woman. If no woman in the world would agree to bear my child, could I force one to by virtue of my rights being violated? No, that would be idiotic. Likewise, it’s idiotic to insist that a woman, gay or straight, has a “right” to get pregnant. Perhaps try using the words “desire” or “ability” instead of “right” and it might make more sense.

  • [3] April 19, 2016 at 1:31pm

    And I have the right to poke hot pins into my eyes, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

  • [4] April 19, 2016 at 1:25pm

    Frigging lesbians. It could be a blessing in disguise that this child may never be able to understand the completely insane nature of her family. Well little Delaney, you have these two mommies who are your real mommies…even though they’re mostly not…then you’ve got these other two mommies who aren’t your real mommies…even though one of them sorta is…and naturally “daddy” is a concept that doesn’t exist in our family. You’ve kinda got one out there somewhere, but you’re likelier to see bigfoot than him.

    And yet they continue to insist that these bizarre Frankenstein families are just as good and healthy for children as the normal one mommy one daddy arrangement. I think you’d have to be an idiot to buy that.

    Responses (3) +
  • [10] April 19, 2016 at 11:39am

    And we have here yet another article wherein a moral argument pretends to be science. If someone wants to just simply make a moral argument against pornography, that would be fine, but to dress it up as science is getting a little old. The “scientific” arguments presented here could be applied to literally anything, because everything we see and hear and experience causes reactions in the brain. Listening to music triggers responses in the brain’s “pleasure circuits”, to use their pseudo-science terminology. I guess we’d all better steer clear of that addictive Beethoven and Brahms! If you think porn is evil, then just say that. But don’t throw a bunch of BS pseudo-science at us like we’re idiots.

    Responses (3) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love