?

Log in

No account? Create an account
BitchCraft
So apparently right now, LJ users across the world are going through what some people are calling the "Great Strikethrough", "Mass Deletion", or "Defening Silence" or whatever the case. What is this you may ask?

Apparently a group known as the "Warriors for Innocence" (WFI) brought to SixApart's (LJ's Administration) attention that some people had illegal sexual interests and posts in their journals and communities. SixApart then started deleting a lot of journals with various illegal interests and posts and such. Naturally this got people's attention, and not in a good way.

I admit that I'm not really sure what's going on in reality because all I'm hearing about this is through /other people's journals/. We all know how reliable a source of information that is.

So naturally this whoollleee thing gets blown out of proportion by whole bunch of people screaming "Freedom of Speech" and using the standard Slippery Slope argument of "When will they come after ____ too?!" This is the focus of this rant.

Freedom of Speech? No. This is not a freedom of speech issue. Let me explain a few things about the Freedom of Speech. US citizens, your freedom of speech means that the government will not infringe on this right by not allowing you to assemble and bitch about the government, or just whatever. Freedom of Speech does NOT entitle you to say whatever you want, whenever you want. Freedom of Speech does NOT mean FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES.

If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you will be arrested. If you say that some chicks from a basketball team are "nappy headed hos" you will be fired. If you joke on Satellite Radio about Raping the Secretary of State and the President's Wife, you will be punished. If you post about doing illegal sexual activity on LJ, you will get banned. Why? Because freedom of speech does not mean you are free from consequences. You technically /can/ say whatever you want, but you might find certain actions are soon to follow.

Why? Because, well let's face it. I'm an American Citizen. This is America. And in America, the land of the free, the home of the brave, the Capitalist Society, a corporation trumps your nonexistant version of "Freedom of Speech". LiveJournal /is/ a corporation, like it or not.

For all of you that bitch that corporations need more power, more influence, more freedoms to work unrestricted... you know the typical Republican spiel, you have no right to be bitching about what LJ and SixApart are doing. Because you are, and have been classically for the corporation over the person. If you do bitch about your civil liberties being trounced by LJ because of this, congrats, you're now a whiney liberal Democrat.

Not that this is a bad thing, mind you, I'm a Liberal Democrat, but I do make an effort to see both sides of the coin. And here's the side of the coin that most people are ignoring. You are using LJ's services. These services are not guaranteed to you at all, whatsoever, even if you have a paid account. Anything you write is subject to the ire of the LJ administration. This post itself could have me banned from LJ if I break one of their rules, or if they just don't like me!

Why is it so, Jakkal? Why is it so?

Because every single person that signed up for LJ, Signed up under this tenet:

TERMINATION

You agree that LiveJournal, in its sole discretion, may terminate your password, journal, or account, and remove and discard any content within the Service, for any reason, including and without limitation, the lack of use, or if LiveJournal believes that you have violated or acted inconsistently with the letter or spirit of the TOS. Any contracts, verbal or written or assumed, in conjunction with your deleted journal and all its parts, at LiveJournal's discretion, will be terminated as well. LiveJournal may also, in its sole discretion and at any time, discontinue providing the Service, or any part thereof, with or without notice. You agree that any termination of your access to the Service under any provision of this TOS may be effected without prior notice, and acknowledge and agree that LiveJournal may immediately deactivate or delete your LiveJournal journal and all related information and files. LiveJournal reserves the right to bar any further access to such files or the Service. You agree that LiveJournal shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your access to the Service. Paid accounts that are terminated will not be refunded.


It is right there, plain as day, in the LJ Terms of Service. You don't have to like it, but if you want to use their service, you have to live with it.

So what can you do about it? Well stop whining. You can't force LJ or SixApart to do anything. And whining about Freedom of Speech and Slippery Slopes are not going to change their minds. Bitching to them will not change their minds. Apparently talking to their advertisers will change their minds, but somehow I doubt you'll convince them that having their ads on journals about porn is a good thing.

Be the change you want to see in the world. If you want a journal system that is not the money of The Machine, then start your own. Get your techies together, build a server, pay for hosting, and start competing. Hell, LJ's own system is freely distributed. It could be JUST THAT EASY. If you want to be responsible and liable for everything said on your site, your journal, you go start your own. That, my friends, is the American Way™.

Just as a note, I'm not happy with LJ suddenly terminating accounts without much information on why. I'm just explaining the facts, and what people should be in doing in lieu of the constant whining. As a liberal Democrat, I see plenty of whining, I don't need to see /more/, especially /internet/ drama whining.

That is all.
 
 
BitchCraft
05 December 2006 @ 07:19 am
I originally posted this on the Kaerwyn forums, but then I realized it was simply too harsh, mostly because it directly involved a certain innocent player (The newest werewolf). However, I feel the need to vent anyway, so I'm posting it here. I'm sure most of you won't get it.

Brief synopsis: We had a bit of op favoritism in an op made an NPC for a player to make their character a werewolf. Normally we scrutinize the hell out of stuff like this, but the op got away with it, somehow. Likely because I wasn't paying attention. I didn't find out about it til it was too late, so I took a "wait and see" approach. The character, who should have been a typical werewolf, did not lose her mind except "occasionally" which was ... honestly... pathetic. The character spent most of her time emoing in the tavern trying to "Mine for attention" as another character put it.

We restrict the hell out of so much. We have denied SO MANY PEOPLE of things similar to this. But somehow this single person, who happens to be friends with an op, manages to get away with this. I go in to put a stop to it by offering an IC solution, and suddenly rumors are spreading like wildfire about how awful and mean, and overlording we are.

What followed was me making the restriction: No more werewolves. Here's the origina post. Again, I took this off the forums because I realized I was being WAY to harsh and overreactive for Kaerwyn, as an admin.

-----------------



I've come to the conclusion that we need to start restricting werewolf characters for the same reason we restrict military and doctoral characters currently - No one ever plays them right.

Yes, this does have to do with recent events. I failed you all in that I didn't take action when I saw the problem starting. Normally I'm a "Wait and see how they play it" type, and everytime I see the inevitable problems. I go to correct them, and then suddenly I'm the bad guy.

So we're going to restrict the problem so that it's ruined, equally, for everyone.

We were told last night that we are "not the authority on werewolves." Well yes, I consider myself an authority on werewolf lore and mythos. Werewolves are the only character types that we let get away with blatant Mary Sueism. There is only one werewolf character in play currently that I can think of that isn't a werewolf mary sue - Megan. And she's not even what I'd consider a classic werewolf, but she's a refreshing change from the typical PC kaerwyn werewolf.

And you all know that there is not a single werewolf character that we've EVER had in Kaerwyn that I didn't bitch about. That's how bad this problem is. And we have denied COUNTLESS players the ability to make their characters into werewolves based on what's going on ICly right now, but now we're the bad guys because we brought it up about the current crop. Not no, but hell no.

I know that werewolves are mythical creatures, but you know what? That doesn't stop us from denying other mythical creatures, such as gryphons that have too small of wings and too much muscle mass, or anthros that have strength and agility when they're big and uber buff. Yet somehow werewolves are allowed to pass through when all they are is a GTS booster for a character. They're all Mary Sue's in that they conveniently get away without losing their minds, and most of them learn to control their bodies in a very short, and retarded amount of time. All advantage, no disadvantage - No more.

So werewolves are restricted. What we mean by werewolves are people who unwillingly change into wolf like creatures based on moon, emotion, or time of day. These are characters that are supposed to be feral, and can infect other characters. This also includes characters who were born human (or whatever) and were 'cursed' to become these werewolves.

Now let me clarify, a werewolf and an anthrowolf shifter are two different things. A character that doesn't lose control of their mentality, even if they can't control their shift is not what we consider a "werewolf" for this post. A character that shifts due to triggers (such as the moon or emotions) that loses control of their mind to the beast and wants to hunt and devour human (or whatever) flesh is what we consider a werewolf.

So you're okay if you want to make a Lorelei or Remy Cross style shifter. But no werewolves.
 
 
BitchCraft
14 November 2006 @ 12:20 am
This will be referencing this article: http://www.wral.com/news/10312479/detail.html

So there's some kind of Baptist shindig going on in my hometown of Greensboro this week. Right, they're there to have fun, and converse, and you know, be Christianly.

And you can't have fun without Fundies.

So apparently they're going to vote on this "sin" (which isn't mentioned in the 7 deadly) about this thing called "homosexuality" and they'll ban churches from their elite middle school lunchtable if they approve of it.

...

Wouldn't I just love to be the person that gets to read off that subject? What would I say? Here's what I'd say.

Fellow Christians (Even though I'm not, but if I were going to be there, I would be wouldn't I?), We have been called together here to vote on the condition known as homosexuality, and all that other crap that Leviticus guy didn't like. Yeah. I'm sure you've all forgotten about the /other/ things said there.

So any church that approves of any of the following will be removed from our lunchroo... regime flock of sheeple Convention:

1. Homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Obviously, God doesn't want people to do that. So you can't support homosexuality and stay in our club!

2. Shellfish: "Leviticus 11:12 - Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." If you like teh lobster, you ain't teh Christian!!1! Thankfully only yankees eat Lobster. So we baptists are OKAY. Except for you people from the bayou, no crawdads fer you!

3. Veggie gardens: "Leviticus 19:19 - you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; ". If your church approves of people planting CORN next to their OKRA you are SO going to hell. We don't want you here.

4. Barbers: "Leviticus 19:27 You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I see a lot of clean shaven men here! You're all sinners! Out, out damn spot, out I say!

5. Tattoos: "Leviticus: 19:28 You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you. " We don't care how much you love your mother, or want to have your pet with you forever. If you have tattoos, you're a SINNER!


Other things that are sins that I can't find the reference too in my short little window for writing this: Bunnies. Hamburgers. Polyester! I'm sure there's more.

So if you condone all of this stuff, we hafta kick you outta the group. Yeah. Sorry.

Wait.

Suddenly I feel so very alone.

...

Did we just kick everyone out for being sinners in the same section of the bible!? Oh teh noes!

But if you're going to quote and condemn one, you should quote and condemn them all. That or get with the times. But you know, the church can freely do what it wants to, it is a private organization afterall. They do have the right to say what they want and kick out gay people if they want. That's perfectly within their rights.

That doesn't /make it right/ however.
 
 
BitchCraft
11 September 2006 @ 07:51 pm
9/11  
As everyone, no doubt, knows this is the 5th anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks that killed over 2900 people. Every year since those attacks, on Sept 11th, people around the world take the time to remember the day, and make tributes to the dead.

In addition, every year since those attacks, every snot nosed spoiled brat whines about it in their live journal or other venews online. That is the nature of this rant.

I've seen many people say that "American deserved those attacks" and "American arrogance lead them to this".

I cannot think of more cowardly, inane words to spew or comments to utter on a day of rememberance. Much like *you* people tell others to "Get over it," stop being fucking hypocrits and GET OVER the fact that PEOPLE ARE STILL MOURNING.

People think American citizens were arrogant, and I've seen that word tossed many times before at the United States of America. But children, there is NOTHING more ARROGANT than stating that 3000 people DESERVED to die.

And when you say that Americans deserved those attacks that they deserved to die, you are also stating that *I* deserved those attacks and that *I* deserved to die. Would you tell me that to my face? Would you say that to the 2900+ that died? No, you wouldn't. Because you use the Internet as a shield for coward speak. And you're only saying this as a lashout, and as attention whoring because /your/ pathetic words are not the spotlight of the day. You are whiners, and you are cowards. And as much as we're sick of hearing about what happened on 9/11 from "whining, cowardly Americans" I'm sick of "whining, cowardly naysayers" and you're /all/ part of the whiney, cowardly bullshit speak that spews forth on 9/11. You are what you hate. You are part of the attention you're sick of. But you're the hypocrites. Congratulations, children. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

And I'm sure many people reading this have had a loved one die, and I don't mean a relative that you see once a year. I'm talking about a parent, a spouse, a lover, hell even a pet. How many people can say they can get over it? How many people can get over it in a year? I got flamed for putting up a 9/11 tribute on BT in /2002/, a mere year later. You whiners were already out in full force with your coward-brigade to make sure no one remembers, to make sure you get your pathetic pity-whoring in on that day. For decent people, 9/11 is a time of remembering. For idiots 9/11 is a giant whinefest.

Sept 11, 2001 was not "an accident". When a tragedy happens, people mourn and get over it. It's /only/ been 5 years, that is /not/ a very long time people. I'm sure in your little immature childlike minds, 5 years is an eternity, but for the rest of us with an iota of intelligence, it's not very long at all. And in this case, there is a blamable source. These people deliberately hurt us. Tell me when someone hurts you, you don't feel hurt, threatened, angry and vengeful. Please. Feel free to tell me this. And I will respond with a single word: Liar.

But for those of you that state "America" deserved these attacks: these attacks were not against our government, they were against our people. This is nothing short of mass murder If you hate our government, and you want to say how much you hate our government, and you want to take proper means to inform our government - feel free. But these attacks were against our people, civilians, civvies that didn't give two shits about the world because they were too busy trying to survive. THat's not arrogance, folks, that's LIFE. And if you state that they "deserved" murder, then every single person on the Earth "deserved murder". So don't give me that bullshit about how they deserved it. At least when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they had the decency to go after a Military base.

So anyone that supports the 9/11 attacks support mass murder on a frightenly large scale. Do you really want me dead that much? Because as an American, I'm one of those you're constantly and insistantly condemning.

So before you start spewing the "A" word around (Arrogance, not Americans) start looking at your sentiments and see if you're "deserving" of the same kind of attack.

And the next LJ post you make whining about losing a loved one, a friend, a pet, or whatever else is close to you, know that I'll be there, reading it, and not about to give you a fucking ounce of sympathy.
 
 
Mental State:: irateirate
Auditory Input:: Tommy Lee - Hold Me Down
 
 
BitchCraft
18 August 2006 @ 05:37 am
So some furry decided to start an argument in my blacktapestries journal after I Told them I wasn't going to tolerate it and they need to bring it here.

This person is obviously incapable of reading, as evidenced by their reply, which is found here: http://blacktapestries.livejournal.com/71662.html?thread=284398#t284398

Well I'm not going to continue the diatribe in my BT journal, just like I warned them, instead, I'm bringing it here. They replied three times to that (Obsessive compulsive much?) and I'm going to paste them here with my reply.

This is long, so it'll be behind a cut.Collapse )
 
 
 
BitchCraft
17 August 2006 @ 02:05 am
So this issue spawns from this topic, that was pointed out to me by shadowsmyst. Obviously the topic is long dead and months old (Until my readers get their say in, mind you.)
http://cgi.furtopia.org/cgi-bin/ib311/ikonboard.cgi?s=14b3720a210b18c409b28c8b12bb6b41;act=ST;f=77;t=18210;&#top

In case they decide to delete that topic, or make it so non-registered people can't view it, I'll past the initial post, as that's pretty much all I'll be dealing with here:




Tahd FahksWurthee:
*applause* Ladies and Gents, furs of all ages, welcome to everyones fav'fur'ite gameshow, Furry or not. Alright, but for our first time viewers, allow an explanation. We are gonig to play a game today. It is a simple game aptly titled, "furry or not". Currently I have only one contestant but I am interested in any input. Depending on your participation in the furry comic scene, you may already know this individual, Jakkal, creator of the very furry comic "Black Tapestries" and an active member of the Therian community. Interested in weres, anthropomorphic art and mythical creatures, hailing from way down in Raleigh, NC, let's give her (bio) a warm furry welcome *cheers and applause*.

For the sake of simplicty and to aviod any misinterpretation, our technicians have uploaded her own auto-biography from her home page. Let's have a look see, shall we?

Brief Bio: Jakkal was born and raised in Greensboro, NC, and always had a flare for Fantasy art. She's always loved drawing mythical creatures, from dragons, unicorns to anthropomorphic animals. As soon as she went to college in 95, she had her first taste of the internet, and discovered others that had the same fascination with anthropomorphic animals and the were-community. While she mostly stuck with the were-community, she has been keeping tabs on the Furry groups as well. In 1996 she discovered the wonderful world of IRC Real Time RPing, which is mostly writing a story where you play a single character.

And how can we go on without some examples of her fine work, just remember folks, this stuff aint furry, or is it?!

Black Tapestries

*applause* Ah, yes, worthy of more than a tail wag, am I right ladies and gents or am I right? *chuckles in the back* But seriously folks, I think we may have a fur in denial here, come on. This young lady is quite insistent that she is not a furry and more specifically, never considered her particular interests of the "furry persuasion". Several arguments have arisen regarding the furry nature of her comics and thus, her own personal "fur reality". But let's be "fur real" for a second folks *same chuckle from back, harder this time* is this gal a furry in denial or what? Hey, I'm just the host, the decision is yours. The polls are open! Thank you, g'night! ;)




Where he said "Black Tapestries" he posts a pic of Lore walking into Theropos, the Kaetif (anthro) City. Convenient, no? Pity he didn't post this page. Or this one, Or even this one, which proves him wrong. No. He has to alter the facts to fit his argument.

Later on he posts that he's not 18 yet, and I think that says a lot about him, to be true. I think he's a person I've had a run-in with in the past that has an obsession with illogical statements, making his own definition for words to win his arguments, and generally dislikes me (And demands his donation back).

But anyway, why does it even matter? Why does it matter if I call myself a furry or not? Are you people really so sensitive that you can't take it when someone has similar interests but doesn't want to take a label? I'm not a furry, and I'll explain why. (Although I don't expect anyone to listen, or care, because .. it's stupid).

Now let's look at this topic seriously for a moment. What makes a furry? A furry is someone in the Furry Fandom, which means, a furry is someone that is a fanatic of anthromorphic animals. I know many furries say that "Furry" also means the entity that they are fans of, but that's illogical slang and will not be used here for that definition (and I'll explain why as well).

And dictionary.com says: fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

So a member of the furry fandom, aka, a furry, is "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm for anthromorphic animals". They are "Fans" of anthromorphic animals.

By this definition, I am not a fan of anthro animals. Having a race of anthro animals in BT does not make me a fan of them. Afterall, why would I make them the tortured, subjugated race? I enjoy drawing anthro animals, and I have before I even knew what a "furry" was. Although had I been exposed to Furries before I Started drawing anthros, I probably would have stopped right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of trouble from obsessive, sensitive, overused assholes.

Is Jakkal a furry? Is Jakkal a member of the Furry Fandom? Is Jakkal a Fanatic of anthro animals? No. The answer to all three is no.

"But Jakkal sells anthropomorphic avatars on SL. She doesn't mind making MONEY off the fandom!"

Disney makes money off the fandom. There are a lot of people that go to Furry cons just to make money off the Fandom. Cafepress makes money off the fandom. Does that necessarily make these furry companies or organizations? No. I'm not selling /exclusively/ to the furry fandom, if I were, then maybe you'd have a point. But I sell them to anyone that wants to buy them, be it furry or someone looking for a halloween/masquerade outfit for their avatar. That doesn't make me a furry.

"But Jakkal makes a comic with Anthromorphic animals in it, that makes her a furry!"

Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird created the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Does that make them furries? Walt Disney created an anthro mouse as his signature character. Does that make him a furry? Robert Picardo played a werewolf in the original Howling movie. Does that make him a furry? What about the writers of the Howling movies? Are they furries too?

Just because I make a comic with a race of anthros doesn't make me a furry. That's absurd.

"Just because a guy is attracted to other guys and denies calling himself homosexual doesn't make him any less homosexual. I can say I'm not blonde but that doesn't change my hair color. I can say I'm a black person but it doesn't change my skin color."

By the logic of "It doesn't matter what she says...", just because you /call/ me a furry does not mean I /am one/. That particular fallacy is double edged.

Sexual orientation has definite, logical descriptive terms. Hair and skin color have acknowledged, logical descriptions and definite explanations. "Furry" is slang. And your basis for calling me a "furry" is based on stereotypical reasoning. So, by that logic, if I'm a furry, the gay man is an AIDS spreading, cross dressing faggot, The blonde person is a stupid, sex crazed bimbo, and the black person is a nigger. In addition, white people are crackers, mexicans are spics, Chinese are chinks, the French are Frogs, and Koreans are Gooks. I'm sure some people will think I'm being too harsh because these terms are very serious, ire-inducing terms. But it *is* the logic that they go by.

Furries don't want to be stereotyped, yet many will not hesitate to stereotype someone else. The stereotype for furries are insecure, emo-filled socially inept, bathe-once-a-century, immature, adults, who cannot hold a serious job, who spend most of their time drawing, writing, or looking at furry media to wank off to. The stereotypical furry is a sexual deviant, who will viciously soddomize pets for a cheap thrill.

Again, let's look at the logic here. I'm being forced into the label of furry because I draw some anthros. If BT is a furry comic because it has some anthros in it, then the furry fandom is a pervert community because it has some perverts in it. By this very logic, If I am a furry because I have these anthro characters, then all furries are perverts because they have some perverts in the fandom. The logic /does not work/.

Continuing on this illogical trend: If you own a car, that makes you a mechanic. If you own a computer, that makes you a programmer. If you have a single, ripped mp3 on your computer, you're a music pirate. If you've ever dressed up for "Opposite Gender" day at your HS Pride week, you're transvestite. And finally, if you've ever dressed up as an animal, you're a fursuiter.

So in conclusion: A furry is someone that calls themselves one. I am not a furry. It doesn't matter what others say or think. They can pretend I'm a furry til the sun don't shine, that doesn't make me one.

But just to be crystal clear, let me explain why I'm not a furry:
#1. I do not actively participate in the fandom. The closest I come to this is selling avatars on SL. But any businessperson would put their products in an area that gets the most sales. This doesn't mean people who go to cons selling their stuff are furries. It means they acknowledge that furries buy their stuff. I've never been to a furry con, or a furry meet. I don't go on furry forums. I don't participate in furry chat rooms. I don't do anything related to 'furries' nor do I actively hang out with furries. Hell, the only time I'm even in furry sims on SL is to update my vendors.

#2. I'm an avid RPer. But I have no anthro characters. I'm sure someone would bring up Lorelei the werefox here. Lorelei was born human, and given a theriomorphic form. Look the word up, folks. Theriomorphic means a human given animal attributes. Lorelei is human in attitude as well as appearance. And even in the RP she rarely if ever shifts to her fox form.

#3. I enjoy drawing anthro characters. Yes. I enjoy drawing other things too. I draw cars, that doesn't make me a mechanic. I draw fruit, that doesn't make me a botanist. I draw seashells, that doesn't mean I like clam chowder. I've drawn the Enterprise from Star Trek several times, that doesn't make me a trekkie. I'm not a fanatic of them. I like animals as a general rule, a lot of people do. That doesn't make them furries - otherwise every veterinarian would be a furry. Everyone animal control officer would be a furry. It's absurd to assume someone is a furry based on what they draw.

#4. I think sex is disgusting. You furries seem real big on that. I like looking at wolves, not humping them.

#5. I'm not an emo-filled, no-self-esteem sex crazed maniac. Yes, now I'm stereotyping you. What's good for the anthro goose is good for the anthro gander, neh?

#6. I don't like it when Christians try to 'save' and 'recruit' me as one of their own. Nor do I like it when furries do the same thing. I, in turn, don't do it to others (Unless you piss me off and I turn your tide against you).

#7. I don't talk about how stupid humans are, and how the world would be better with 'all anthros', and I don't pretend I'm an anthro, or daydream about becoming one. I don't care, I'm fine with my human, mundane existance.

#8. I don't balk at things just because they have no anthros or animals in them. In return, I don't naturally like or get attracted to something just because it has anthros or animals in them.

#9. I don't change words to sound more "furry" or "cute" in my sentences like a stupid, retarded child who is hukked on fonix would do. e.g. "Fursecute" "Purrfection" "Fur instance".

#10. I don't pretend I know how everything works for everyone else.


A lot of furries talking about how being "Furry" is a special thing to them, that has a deeper, inner meaning. It helps them find like-minded people, and it's a personal and wonderful experience. Being a 'furry' could do someone a lot of good. But, from people like the guy that started this thread, furry is nothing more than a cheap label. He's using it to target people he dislikes, and tries to insult them with it. Why do you furries stand for this? I suppose the same reason you let all the crazies speak for you as well. But in the end, I'm not going to do like this guy does. I'm not going to brand all furries as sexual deviants. I'm not going to tell everyone to "avoid the furries". I'm going to give each individual furry a chance, because I know they are not all the same. I'm not going to label slap any of them until they label slap me - and then it's only retaliation.

So basically this boils down to a whole lot of: I'm not a furry. I merely provide the content that you spooge over. In other words: GET. OVER. IT. By the end of the day, life will go on, the sun will continue to rise, I will continue to make what I enjoy making, and you'll wank over it despite how much you bitch about me.
 
 
BitchCraft
I think the FFF are pretty cool. They're good people man. But sometimes they trip my trigger and they break the suspension of stupidity that requires me, the stupid smiter, to go into furious rage and action.

In their latest show, and I am paraphrasing, they blamed liberals for trying to interject government into church affairs. Right. So, naturally, I told them what I thought. And they of course, left IRC with a hit and run. Happy Jakkal? No, not happy Jakkal. Jakkal just sees a side of them they're unwilling to notice, which is not that much different from them bitching about Anons.

And you know, there's just something about hypocritical ignorance that just drives me up the wall.

So here goes, my responce to them, unedited.

Liberals are not trying to do anything but give people equal rights. They aren't trying to actively legalize gay marriage, that is what the activists are trying to do. The liberals just want to ensure that the conservatives do not USE Abuse the constitution, Which if you hadn't noticed, is part of the government, to dictate "rights" based on inequality. Just because you are incapable of seeing this does not negate it's existance.

So in essence, when you blame the liberals for trying to merge the affairs of the church and the government, you're really talking about the liberals trying to STOP the Conservatives from merging the affairs of the church with the government, including various state constitutions as well as the Constitution of the United States of America.

But let me explain to you what is going on with Gay Marriage since you don't seem to understand it. And your logical fallacy of "We don't need it, so you don't either" will not work.

Marriage is a religious thing. Yes, you're right there. Marriage shouldn't be part of the government. Yes, you're right there too. But the part that you're missing is that Marriage IS part of the government. There are various benefits of Marriage, which of course, range from state to state. Civil unions, as they stand /do not offer/ equal benefits in all states. There are about 400 state benefits and 1000 federal benefits. These benefits range from tax breaks (Many don't apply unless you have kids, mind you, so the argument of needing the breaks for the kids is moot), as well as visitation rights, property rights, immigration/residency, inheritance, joint leases, renewal rights (in the event one partner dies), Visitation rights for /hospital/ stays (which non-family members cannot get now), Spousal exemptions to property tax increases, wrongful death benefits, domestic violence protection orders, evidentiary immunity, decision making power upon the death of the partner, et cetera et cetera. As you can see, this is very much an equal rights issue. Whether or not you agree with gay marriage is moot, this is about equality, plain and simple.

My proposal, and this is from a liberal heterosexual female, so feel free to rub your cock all over it when you're done reading, is to remove marriage from the government /completely/ and ONLY allow Civil unions for governmental stuff. This will only happen when the government gives the full benefits of marriage to Civil Unions. Period. Remove marriage from the government /completely/ and give the benefits to /any two people/ that wish to gain such rights as partners. Keep marriage as God's witnessing of two couples joined in matrimony.

I'm sure the next thing people think of when they hear this is "Why stop at two people?" "When we allow gay marriage, what about the polygamists and others?" That is not a logical nor valid reason for disallowing gay marriage. Those would be debates for another time and another place, once we have gotten rid of the wall of shame that separates the legal rights of our people.

Remember, in the 1960s they were having this exact same argument, only it was interacial marriage. What do you think about that?
 
 
BitchCraft
24 May 2006 @ 04:57 pm
"Truth" is only a politically correctness "code word" for condoning ignorance just as "Intelligent Design" is for Creationists. I won't use those deceptive terms no matter how often the Conservative Christian Reich tries to shove them down our throats reinforce them.

So atmanryu points out this Christian baked comic set known as the "Truth for youth". I love the way Christians toss that "Truth" word around. It's kind of like me taking another word, such as "Magical" and trying to apply it to myself because people can't disprove it.

Although in the Homosexuality Comic, I was impressed at first as they were telling people to be /tolerant/ of gays and their beliefs. And then later it degenerated into, yet another, propaganda filled, cult-like pamphlet under the guise of "Truth". The opening statement was a rip from their homosexuality comic about the word "Gay".

The fact that it's all done in Comicy Goodness just shows that they're striving for a new low to lure people into their cult. "Children won't listen to THE TRUTH™ unless we draw it in PURDY PICKSURES!"

These comics are so pathetic that they're amusing for people like me. I don't really have a problem with Christianity. I don't have a problem with most Christians. I have a severe problem with Christians shoving their beliefs down my throat. I have an even more serious problem when they steal words such as "Truth" and try to apply it to themselves.

You know, if there is a god, then I'm sure he's going to smite me most verily. But if there is a god, then he DID give us free will. He gave us free thought. He gave us the capacity to make our own decisions. If he wanted us all to follow him absolutely, he would not have given us this ability. I think if there is a God, he wants us all to find our own path to enlightenment, not to pretend we're "good people" because we "Go to church every Sunday" and "Read the Bible" and then get NOTHING out of it. I don't think God wants us to accept the fact that we're sinners, go to Church to listen to his teachings, and then CONTINUE SINNING and COMPLETELY disregard those teachings 6 days out of the week.

In addition, it is NOT cool to call things sins and acts of evil from one part of the bible and then COMPLETELY ignore the others. Bunnies are evil. Shellfish, evil. Gardens? Evil. They're all sins, just like homosexuality. Infact, they're in that same part there, Leviticus I think. So the person that owns the Bunny, the guy that eats the Shellfish, the woman that wears the polyester, and the guy that porks other guys are AAAALLLLL in the same boat of sin, okay? Stop coming down on the homosexuals because -you- are uncomfortable with the idea of a man loving a man, and a woman loving a woman.

Stop acting like Rock and Roll is going to be the degeneration of youth. Stop acting as if Christians are the minority. Just because you cannot rule the world does NOT mean you're the minority. You're the majority, so stop fucking calling foul when a few small voices start disagreeing with you. It's JUST NOT COOL.

And then we get to Evolution. Dun dun dunnnn http://truthforyouth.com/NEW%20Comics/SM/index.htm

That comic made me so sick that I couldn't even get through it.

Studies are showing that students are slipping in science. Why? Maybe because they're not paying attention in science class because everything can be answered with "GOD MADE IT SO." Wouldn't that be cool to be in Kansas? Why, ever science test you ever take, you could just answer all the questions with "God made it that way."

"Why does the earth rotate around the sun? God made it so."

"Where do babies come from? God."

"Which gas in the air would increase if a large number of trees were cut down? God Gas"

Yeah. We see where this is going.

And now I'm going to leave you with a definition. Pay heed, "Truth for Youth". Truth is: (From Dictionary.Com)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
- Reality; actuality.
- often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.



Truth is not "What cannot be disproven". Truth is also not based on an opinion. So please keep your "Truth" to yourself, it does not correspond to my "Truth".
 
 
BitchCraft
19 April 2006 @ 02:37 pm
You know, I've seen several references to the Insanity Plea lately. For those of you who don't know, if you're found insane during a court trial in the US you can usually end up getting a lesser sentence than someone who commits the same crime that isn't insane. Such as in the case of Moussaoui, well there's no question that he's guilty, but they're trying to decide if he's insane (Life in Prison) or if he's just a mass murderer (Death Penalty).

You know, I can see where the Insanity Plea makes -some- sense. But mostly I think it's a bunch of abused and overused bullshit. The Insanity defense shouldn't apply to violent crimes where people get seriously injured. Now, sure, if someone that's mentally unstable, has a little fit, tosses a few objects, that hits someone, it might work in that case. Right? Sure. Accidents happen and sometimes the crazies just can't help being crazies.

Helping a plot to kill 3000 people? Wanting people to die just because of the country they live in? Singing and laughing in your own murder trial? Obviously YOU ARE INSANE. Should you get a LIFE SENTENCE for that? HELL NO. You are a DANGEROUS mofugger that should be SLAUGHTERED for the protection of OTHER PEOPLE from your crazy, hypocritical ass.

It is in my opinion that if you KILL someone, or your actions lead to the death of someone, FUCK INSANITY PLEA. It should be fucking obvious that you are fucking insane. You just don't do these things in normal society. Sure, blame it on convenient 'conditions' like aspergers, autism, schizophrenia, DID, and other things. Yes, these are real conditions. Yes, they make you do things out of your control. But if you are SO out of control that you HURT or KILL people, then SOMETHING needs to be done ABOUT you, not FOR YOU. Why? Because there are PLENTY of people with these conditions, who through the help of counseling, medications, and other social therapy, can live normal, Happy, NONmurderous lives. Just like how many people who don't have mental conditions can do the same (yet some 'normal' people still murder). See how that works? The "Insane" shouldn't have lenient punishments. You hurt someone, you're responsible for it. Doesn't matter if you cracked in the middle of rush hour and mowed down some pedestrians, or you ran out of your Neuroleptics and slaughtered a few innocent bystanders. You're responsible.

YOU took away lives that CANNOT be redeemed, or renewed. Why should you, just because you're "insane?"
 
 
Mental State:: annoyedannoyed
Auditory Input:: Barenaked Ladies - One Week
 
 
BitchCraft
12 April 2006 @ 08:33 pm
I am so sick and tired of dealing with rude, obnoxious assholes on SecondLife because I'm a shopkeep. I'm supposed to keep up appearances and be 'nice' to my customers, even when they're ranting and raving. No, this is not an attack on Furries, however Furries ARE my biggest customers. So let's just say that they aren't improving my opinion at all.

In any case, I just want to let it be known, that the Prim Avs are NOT sold modifiable. As a creator on SecondLife THIS IS MY RIGHT. If you don't like that fact, then please buy someone else's avatar.

Despite what everyone on SL thinks, I am not "In it for the money." Waving $L's in my face means nothing to me. I don't care about it. I make avatars because I enjoy making avatars! People enjoy using my avatars! This makes me happy and it's what I enjoy doing! And yes, I get money on the side from it. But you know what? For all those avatars, I make less than $4USD on a sale (even less for regular anthro avs)! It's NOT worth to me to go through the hassle and the bullshit!

Yes, I get money from it because, YES, it IS nice to get compensated for it, especially when I make enough to pay the land tier. (So SL pays for itself). It is NOT nice to constantly get harassed by people who are too selfish to realize that their $4 disagreement isn't worth the stress! Please, PLEASE stop acting as if $1500L is worth $1500USD. It's NOT, it's NOT hard to come by. I'm sorry if you can't afford a premium account (which comes with $500L stipend per week). I'm sorry if you're unwilling to send in a few bucks to the Lindex (SL's money exchange) and get some $L for avatars. I'm really really sorry. But I'm NOT sorry when you make a mistake, and you come to me throwing your fat around, but not taking the time to realize that $1500L = $4.83USD! THAT IS NOT WORTH MY TIME TO TOLERATE YOUR DISRESPECT!

Do not WAVE money in my face looking to get a special deal. We do NOT sell modifiable prim avatars. You all think we're "doing it for the money" and then wonder why I WON'T SELL YOU STUFF. It's because I'm _not_ doing it for the money. If in the future that we decide to sell modifiable Prim Avs (once I write up a Lengthy disclaimer) we will put them in the vendor for sale so EVERYONE can enjoy them.

And if I were "Just doing it for the money", offering a PALTRY amount such as $500L IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT. If you're going to WASTE MY TIME and force me to SWALLOW YOUR ATTITUDE, then you're GOING to make it WORTH MY WHILE. Offering me $2 is NOT going to get you a modifiable avatar, period. It's NOT worth that to me. I'm SORRY.

When you PM me for information, questions, and asking about custom work, DON'T GIVE ME ATTITUDE and I won't GIVE IT BACK! It's that easy! So PLEASE for ONCE IN YOUR SPOILED LIVES, respect my CHOICES and my RIGHTS as a human being and a user of SL.
 
 
Mental State:: bitchybitchy
Auditory Input:: System Of A Down - Hypnotize