Posted on 08/22/2010 11:52:06 AM PDT by LibWhacker
An 11-year-old albino girl from Swaziland was shot dead in front of her friends and then beheaded in what police believe was a ritual murder.
The child had been washing clothes and bathing at a river with friends and was returning home when she was grabbed by a man wearing a balaclava.
As her friends looked on, the man shot her in the back before dragging her away. Her headless body was found upriver a short time later.
The murder is the latest in a series of albino killings in Sub-Saharan Africa, where sufferers of the rare skin pigmentation condition are concentrated.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“Are you the author of this post, which is also found here and attributed to a Reginald Firehammer?”
I am, and I am Reginald Firehammer. Hank Kerchief is my screen name. I’ve never hidden it.
By the way, I posted the whole article for two reasons: most people do not bother going to links, and I have no intention of using FR to promote any of my WEB pages.
Why did you want to know?
Hank
So then, can you back up your entirely bogus claim that abortion was unheard of a hundred years ago in light of the fact that I posted proof that surgical abortion was practiced at least EIGHTEEN HUNDRED years ago?
I shouldn't bother answering your slander at all, but I want other people to see how your kind operates.
Why would I, "back up," what I never said. You either have a reading comprehension problem or are an intentional liar. What I wrote was:
A hundred years ago, abortion, as a medical procedure akin to many other kinds of minor operations, was unknown.
I never said, "surgical abortion," was unknown, and you know it. But even if I had, it would have been the minorest of slips and totally irrlevant, just the kind of thing that would matter to a small mind.
If you are going to continue with your charade of being an intellectual you should probably learn the difference between slander and libel.
Why would I, "back up," what I never said. You either have a reading comprehension problem or are an intentional liar. What I wrote was:
A hundred years ago, abortion, as a medical procedure akin to many other kinds of minor operations, was unknown.
I never said, "surgical abortion," was unknown, and you know it. But even if I had, it would have been the minorest of slips and totally irrlevant, just the kind of thing that would matter to a small mind.
That is a distinction without a difference, you said a "minor operation" which is no different from a surgical abortion.
You claimed that abortion "as a medical procedure akin to many other kinds of minor operations, was unknown" a hundred years ago.
I pointed out that surgical abortion was being practiced no later than the 2nd century AD. Since anesthesia and other modern surgical techniques did not exist then, it was a minor operation.
As the method of abortion described by Tertullian is fairly similar to modern abortion, any claim you make that it was unknown a hundred years ago is baseless.
Libertarians are much worse actually than regular leftists/progressives/Democrats or whatever else it pleases them to call thesmelves.
Because Libertarins pretend that they care about morality.
One group says “Evil can be done in the name of the Greater Good” and the other says “Evil can be done in the name of Individual Freedom”.
I like to know who composed a post. It’s my understanding that proper attribution is considered desirable on a forum such as this. Admin Moderator, is this correct?
“I like to know who composed a post. It’s my understanding that proper attribution is considered desirable on a forum such as this. Admin Moderator, is this correct?”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am the author. My name is Reginald Firehammer. The link is to the original article. It is properly attributed. What is your problem?
I run the Independent Individualist, and The Autonomist, and other sites you’d not be interested—very technical.
I think you need a nice drink, and a relaxing evening. I know things are tough in taxachusetts. Do have a nice evening.
Hank
Proper attribution is essential, if for nothing more than copyright issues. This should be easily understood by anyone who has spent time on a forum such as this.
“Proper attribution is essential, if for nothing more than copyright issues. This should be easily understood by anyone who has spent time on a forum such as this.”
OK. Hope you are over your paranoia, although I do not totally believe you. I’ve been here longer than you have, and was a publisher for over 30 years, so, yes, I think I know something about it. None of my material is copyrighted, by the way. I do not believe in intellectual property, but would never use anyone else’s material, but only from my own sense of integrity, not from some dumb obedience to bad laws.
Hank
Well, thank you. That’s awfully gracious of you.
“Well, thank you. That’s awfully gracious of you.”
Well, no, it wasn’t, but I was a little annoyed by the implied suggestion I was not totally on the up-and-up.
It’s not your fault, so I apologize for the sarcastic tone. Do hope you have a pleasant evening. Just ignore this old fart’s crankiness.
Hank
Thank you, and you as well. Perhaps in the near future we can continue our discussion of why abortion is in fact, murder.
"Your kind"?
FOTFLOL!!!
You're a troll, Hank. Your posting history is filled with liberal talking points.
“You’re a troll, Hank. Your posting history is filled with liberal talking points.”
Then why do you post to me? Since I’ve been here four more years (actually more) then you have, perhaps you are the troll promoting your leftist collectivist ideas.
No, you are not, of course. But see how much easier it is to call names than actually engage in rational debate.
The truth is I am opposed to everything the left is for, including your own brand of government oppression, which if implemented would ultimately prevent your own free exercise of your religion. I’m for your freedom, but you are not for mine.
Have a pleasant evening.
Hank
“I’m for your freedom, but you are not for mine.”
We are for everyone’s freedom including the freedom’s of the unborn child.
That seems like a rather odd thing for someone to say who believes that abortion is nothing more than a political issue and seems to worship Ayn Rand.
Then again, it all becomes very clear when I go to the "Independent Individualist" (a website you have already stated you run) and notice how prominently it displays a quote by George Bernard Shaw who was a big time socialist and eugenicist.
Can’t fix stupid.
Politics
Shaw asserted that each social class strove to serve its own ends, and that the upper and middle classes won in the struggle while the working class lost. He condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently.[57] He believed this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly. He called the developmental process elective breeding but it is sometimes referred to as shavian eugenics, largely because he thought it was driven by a "Life Force" that led women—subconsciously—to select the mates most likely to give them superior children.[58] The outcome Shaw envisioned is dramatised in Back to Methuselah, a monumental play depicting human development from its beginning in the Garden of Eden until the distant future.[59] In 1882, influenced by Henry George's views on land nationalization, Shaw concluded that private ownership of land and its exploitation for personal profit was a form of theft, and advocated equitable distribution of land and natural resources and their control by governments intent on promoting the commonwealth. Shaw believed that income for individuals should come solely from the sale of their own labour and that poverty could be eliminated by giving equal pay to everyone. These concepts led Shaw to apply for membership of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), led by H. M. Hyndman who introduced him to the works of Karl Marx. Shaw never joined the SDF, which favoured forcible reforms. Instead, in 1884, he joined the newly formed Fabian Society, which accorded with his belief that reform should be gradual and induced by peaceful means rather than by outright revolution.[60] Shaw was an active Fabian. He wrote many of their pamphlets,[47] lectured tirelessly on behalf of their causes and provided money to set up The New Age, an independent socialist journal. As a Fabian, he participated in the formation of the Labour Party. The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism[48] provides a clear statement of his socialistic views. As evinced in plays like Major Barbara and Pygmalion, class struggle is a motif in much of Shaw's writing.
Shaw opposed the execution of Sir Roger Casement in 1916. He wrote a letter "as an Irishman"[61] to The Times, which they rejected, but it was subsequently printed by both the Manchester Guardian on 22 July 1916, and by the New York American on 13 August 1916.
After visiting the USSR in the 1930s where he met Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR. On 11 October 1931 he broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any 'skilled workman...of suitable age and good character' would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union.[62] Tim Tzouliadis asserts that hundreds of Americans responded to his suggestion and left for the USSR.[63]
A recent documentary, The Soviet Story, includes an extensive clip of film in which George Bernard Shaw, facing the camera, is apparently speaking in favour of discarding those members of society 'who are no use in this world': You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.[64]
Shaw echoes this sentiment in the preface to his play On the Rocks (1933) writing:
"But the most elaborate code of this sort would still have left unspecified a hundred ways in which wreckers of Communism could have sidetracked it without ever having to face the essential questions: are you pulling your weight in the social boat? are you giving more trouble than you are worth? have you earned the privilege of living in a civilized community? That is why the Russians were forced to set up an Inquisition or Star Chamber, called at first the Cheka and now the Gay Pay Oo (Ogpu), to go into these questions and "liquidate" persons who could not answer them satisfactorily." [65]
Yet, Shaw also maintained that the killing should be humane. In the preface to On the Rocks, Shaw includes a criticism of the pogroms conducted by the State Political Directorate (OGPU). He compares their logic to that of other societies throughout human history, and writes: "When the horrors of anarchy force us to set up laws that forbid us to fight and torture one another for sport, we still snatch as every excuse for declaring individuals outside the protection of law and torturing them to our hearts' content. [...] The concentration of British and American attention on the intolerances of Fascism and Communism creates an illusion that they do not exist elsewhere; but they exist everywhere, and must be met, not with ridiculous hotheaded attacks on Germany, Italy, and Russia, but by a restatement of the case for Toleration in general."
Shaw was also a very close friend of John Maynard Keynes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.