The episode is about a man who goes around raping 'chickens'. I couldn't help but think that the South Park writers were trying to convey this terminology back when this episode was created. It could be a coincidence though. However, let us not forget the episode of South Park where 'The Super Adventure Club' that brainwashed the character 'Chef' was a bunch of old men going around the world raping kids for their energy...
Someone was just streaming that episode on YouTube yesterday and I remember the part where the kids were like “we’re all about love and equality and all that crap, but you fuck kids, seriously dude, fuck you”
I remember reading something a long time ago about the creators connections to Columbine and even Jonbenet. It really is a small world...
The Columbine kids had a sodomite pedophile older "friend" in the neighborhood that gave them alcohol etc. They were also devout darwinists and did the crime on hitler's bday. Trey Parker was interviewed about this event on Bowling for Columbine and he nor Michael Moore went anywhere close to these issues.
Yes, the british invasion of this godless ideology is a great threat to our Constitutional government which affrims that our rights come from our Creator. Nothing good has come from that stupid grotesch and morbid ideology. Just child and baby skulls are are the fruits of darwinism.
Nothing good has come from that stupid grotesch and morbid ideology
Nothing good has come from Darwinism? Bold claim. Also wrong.
Yes. Knowing that all life shares a common origin is "nothing good [coming] from this stupid and grotesque ideology"? What's" stupid and grotesque" about it?
Just child and baby skulls are are the fruits of darwinism.
You're welcome to reject the Creator like Marx, Mao, Lenin etc. Marx loved darwin's book. Charlie married his cousin btw and lemented about his child probably which died as a result of his racist inbreeding darwinism. Sad! There are plenty of godless countries to take you and your stupid ideology in. Here are rights come from our Creator. Please respect that.
So you're strawmanning me. Good job. Are you saying that evolutionism is wrong? Charles Darwin married his cousin, therefore his theory is wrong? Mao, Marx and Lenin liked Darwin's books and were godless, therefore Darwinism refuted? Lol
Those are the fruits of Darwinism. It just gives you an idea of how good it is. Alternatively Bible toting Christians moved into the desolate Great Plains and turned it into a food basket for the world. Those were good fruits. The Constitution was also a fruit of Creationism. Judge for yourself. Take a second look at it. Read up on what the people you mock and despise have to say. Maybe they have some points and you're ugly mocking attitude is not about you, but about the godless ideology you're trying to accommodate. Give it a shot for a week. You can always return to darwinism like how dogs return to their vomit.
It doesn't matter how motivational creationism was for our constitution, and it doesn't matter how big of a faggot @eagleshigh is for sucking the cock of Charles Darwin and Hitler; you do not need God to establish human rights. That is, even if God exists and is the source of our human rights, he need not be. If there were no God, you could construct human rights without him. Eagleshigh is dumb because he doesn't read Nagel, goy.
I think natural rights require God, but legal rights don't. You could argue that our founding fathers gave us better legal rights due to their belief in natural rights, but even then, the law remains arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that; all law is arbitrary.
The term "human rights" seems like it applies to everyone on the planet, so I don't see that happening unless we end up with some AI or space alien king that is somewhat benevolent, keeps its promises, and rules the entire world with an iron fist (since the people most likely to violate your rights are non-government actors). But this assumes that rights need to be enforceable. If they don't need to be, then we already have the laughable UN Declaration of Human Rights. Mission accomplished!
Rights are invisible things, like moral obligations. Regardless of enforcement, people have moral obligations. Regardless of actualization in society, people have rights.
view the rest of the comments →
TruthEarthOrg ago
The episode is about a man who goes around raping 'chickens'. I couldn't help but think that the South Park writers were trying to convey this terminology back when this episode was created. It could be a coincidence though. However, let us not forget the episode of South Park where 'The Super Adventure Club' that brainwashed the character 'Chef' was a bunch of old men going around the world raping kids for their energy...
Oldno7 ago
They were also one of the first to expose NAMBLA in the episode Cartman joins NAMBLA.
Magonia ago
Someone was just streaming that episode on YouTube yesterday and I remember the part where the kids were like “we’re all about love and equality and all that crap, but you fuck kids, seriously dude, fuck you”
I remember reading something a long time ago about the creators connections to Columbine and even Jonbenet. It really is a small world...
StSimonTrentPray4Us ago
The Columbine kids had a sodomite pedophile older "friend" in the neighborhood that gave them alcohol etc. They were also devout darwinists and did the crime on hitler's bday. Trey Parker was interviewed about this event on Bowling for Columbine and he nor Michael Moore went anywhere close to these issues.
eagleshigh ago
You say this as if it's a problem. @crensch
StSimonTrentPray4Us ago
Yes, the british invasion of this godless ideology is a great threat to our Constitutional government which affrims that our rights come from our Creator. Nothing good has come from that stupid grotesch and morbid ideology. Just child and baby skulls are are the fruits of darwinism.
eagleshigh ago
Nothing good has come from Darwinism? Bold claim. Also wrong.
Yes. Knowing that all life shares a common origin is "nothing good [coming] from this stupid and grotesque ideology"? What's" stupid and grotesque" about it?
This is retarded.
@crensch
StSimonTrentPray4Us ago
People with an extra chromosome are "retarded". You're just further refuting your own stupid ideology.
eagleshigh ago
Meaningless to this conversation.
Quote me on how I further refuted my "own stupid ideology."
@crensch
StSimonTrentPray4Us ago
You're welcome to reject the Creator like Marx, Mao, Lenin etc. Marx loved darwin's book. Charlie married his cousin btw and lemented about his child probably which died as a result of his racist inbreeding darwinism. Sad! There are plenty of godless countries to take you and your stupid ideology in. Here are rights come from our Creator. Please respect that.
eagleshigh ago
So you're strawmanning me. Good job. Are you saying that evolutionism is wrong? Charles Darwin married his cousin, therefore his theory is wrong? Mao, Marx and Lenin liked Darwin's books and were godless, therefore Darwinism refuted? Lol
@crensch
StSimonTrentPray4Us ago
Those are the fruits of Darwinism. It just gives you an idea of how good it is. Alternatively Bible toting Christians moved into the desolate Great Plains and turned it into a food basket for the world. Those were good fruits. The Constitution was also a fruit of Creationism. Judge for yourself. Take a second look at it. Read up on what the people you mock and despise have to say. Maybe they have some points and you're ugly mocking attitude is not about you, but about the godless ideology you're trying to accommodate. Give it a shot for a week. You can always return to darwinism like how dogs return to their vomit.
antiracist ago
It doesn't matter how motivational creationism was for our constitution, and it doesn't matter how big of a faggot @eagleshigh is for sucking the cock of Charles Darwin and Hitler; you do not need God to establish human rights. That is, even if God exists and is the source of our human rights, he need not be. If there were no God, you could construct human rights without him. Eagleshigh is dumb because he doesn't read Nagel, goy.
@bojangles @sarmegahhikkitha
Bojangles ago
I think natural rights require God, but legal rights don't. You could argue that our founding fathers gave us better legal rights due to their belief in natural rights, but even then, the law remains arbitrary. And there's nothing wrong with that; all law is arbitrary.
The term "human rights" seems like it applies to everyone on the planet, so I don't see that happening unless we end up with some AI or space alien king that is somewhat benevolent, keeps its promises, and rules the entire world with an iron fist (since the people most likely to violate your rights are non-government actors). But this assumes that rights need to be enforceable. If they don't need to be, then we already have the laughable UN Declaration of Human Rights. Mission accomplished!
antiracist ago
Law isn't arbitrary.
Rights are invisible things, like moral obligations. Regardless of enforcement, people have moral obligations. Regardless of actualization in society, people have rights.
@eagleshigh @sarmegahhikkitha
Hay eaglesdyke why don't you tell me how the existence of rights falls out of Darwinism.