If we compare this to even the crappiest online definition of violence: âoebehaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or somethingâ. Bingo. It fits: Pregnancy = may hurt, damage or kill. Intercourse = a man using his physical force to penetrate a woman. Intention / purpose of the act of intercourse = to cause pregnancy. PIV is therefore intentional harm / violence. Intentional sexual harm of a man against a woman through penile penetration = RAPE.

Through an all-pervasive and powerful male propaganda, they stuff our minds from infancy with the idea that PIV is normal, desirable and erotic, before we can even conceive of it as something horrifying, and make sure we never see any alternative to their lie â" or that if we do, we can no longer take in the information, are punished for thinking and saying otherwise. The fact we may not immediately feel raped doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s not rape, objectively speaking.

Blaming the victim. What are we, as a society, doing to help these men learn how to find women? All I see is abuse heaped on them by people who get squicked out to discover that these men have sexual desires, too. It's like a national sport, everyone does it and to express any sympathy with these unwillingly celibate males is social poison.

It's just hypocritical because non-profit entities set themselves above businesses who pursue that filthy profit - and yet the non-profits do the same thing. Using evil means to achieve good goals - what is that?

No such thing as a non-crazy feminist. The entire movement is hate-based, and founded upon a flawed assumption that men and women are the same.

When's the last time you opened a product labeled "Made in one of those four countries"? Yeah, that's what I thought. Seriously, there needs to be a meme or something that eliminates whatever argument someone made, if the only counter-argument is "it works in 100% white countries where everyone agrees on everything and the population is less than most US states". In 20 years demographic trends will be very, very different in these countries and we may be able to have a sane conversation about these issues, after diversity has been achieved.

Protectionism AND socialism? WTF? Which one are you, a racist or a progressive? If you're progressive, you support socialism. If you're a racist, you support protectionism. You seem to be confused. Progressives are internationalists. If there is a decision that Obama could make that benefits 10,000 Americans or 10,003 Somalians, then the second choice is clearly correct. If you're a racist, then you think "America first" and fuck the rest of the world.

So, which are you? Nationalist, or socialist? There's no union between these two sets. They are polar opposites.

A man who buys a drill doesn't need a drill. He needs holes.

The problem is when you define those that don't agree with you as bigots, and have no problem engaging in bigotry yourself. You call it social justice and really can't see why anyone would disagree with your extreme left-wing views. It's an affliction that, in my estimation, will only get worse. Why should any leftist listen to people who are obviously dissidents?

"What our enemies oppose, we will support. And whatever our enemies support, we will oppose."
-- Mao Tse-Tung

Do you even know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is? Seriously? "A true socialist would never have done that" gimme a fucking break. Deal with your historical legacy, because until you do, nobody will take you seriously. Socialists did horrible, horrible things in the name of socialism. Deal.

That's because their consultants told them to shut up because it was harming their brand image. Greenpeace hasn't changed, it's still full of the same wackos and want-to-end-civilization scary people.

If nobody gives a shit what they think, why'd you spend a bunch of words attempting to deflate what they said? Did that sting? Methinks he doth protest too much.

Hard evidence? Counselor, I move to bring Tolkien's letters into the courtroom. The hearing is adjourned for several days of reading. Get busy! Oh, you don't want to because you have better things to do than Tolkien-lore? Gosh, what's that called legally?

The Fell Beasts didn't need to be ridden. The Servants of Sauron were completely capable of acting on their own. It's not a rationalization. You'd have to learn a bit more to know this, but as you've already closed your mind I rather doubt you're in the mood for learning. Plus, studying Tolkien-lore is much like being good at chess...it's a useless skill that only pleases its student. Your time would be better spent learning applied skills.

Sigh...I love when people wave this around like they found something and have proved once and for all a beloved work of literature is stupid and pointless. The Eagles are standoffish and don't mix with the rest of Middle-Earth. Most of their interaction with society comes from stealing cattle, which doesn't exactly make them popular.

And the old "oh-ho, why didn't they just fly into Mordor and drop the Ring into the top of Mount Doom", yeah right the Eye would have spotted them coming a mile off and they would have been met by every Fell Beast from Barad-Dur. Great job handing the Ring to the bad guy, people. The only reason the Frodo plot worked in the first place was because Sauron never saw it coming, only purity of spirit and mercy can get rid of evil, not brute force, etc. etc. Plot hole my ass.

I remember before the movies came out, that I wished more people could experience Lord of the Rings. It was just such an awesome book. I dreamed of the day the work would be known to everyone. Oh, don't get me wrong, lots of people knew LOTR back in the day, but it wasn't mainstream. I knew that if my dream were to come true, the real key would be overexposure. Hey, it's either that or stay a cult classic, right?

Of course, today, my dream has been fulfilled. The movies were great. Lots of haters, but you know what? The director kept most of the themes intact, and that's what counts.

The really ugly haters are on the literature side. The "literati" (LOL what a dumb name) are horrified by Tolkien because he shoves in their face the fact that they don't get to decide what literature is. The readers do. He reminds them that they are less and less relevant with each passing year, and they hate that.

Tolkien stands in stark contrast to the socialist-leaning, Modernist, elitist literati that hate him so much. As Mingardi and Stagnaro have demonstrated, Tolkien understood that socialism was unworkable and made little distinction between "left" and "right" socialism. Shippey notes that the literary coterie that "ruled and defined English literature at least for a time, between the wars and after World War II⦠were committed modernists, upper class, often Etonians, often professed Communists, often extremely rich, well-entrenched as editors and reviewers in the literary columns." (p. 316) In another article, Mingardi and Stagnaro show that far from being a statist as so many of the literati were throughout the 20th century, Tolkien identified himself as an anarchist (of the private property sort, not the socialist, bomb-throwing sort).

Furthermore, he commits a cultural/political crime that for our socialist literati is unforgivable. He likes the middle class and writes about them affectionately in the guise of the Hobbits. No sense of alienation! No sense of looking down on the middle class snootily from a lofty vantage point! Unforgivable!

-- Why They Hate Tolkien, by Lew Rockwell