So, what's a "breeder"? Turning now to Urban Dictionary for some illumination:
Slang term used by people of homosexual persuasion to refer to heterosexual couples, who have a significantly higher risk of contributing to the population increase than the homosexuals do.Setting aside for the moment Yglesias' sexual orientation, there's a lot in that definition that's revealing of secular progressive ideology. It's not just that heterosexual norms are dominant in society, but that heterosexuals are at "risk" of having more babies, and thus "destroying" the environment.
I've been studying the left for sometime now, and the further you dig down into the nihilist epistemology of far-left wing collectivism, a comprehensive ideological framework does emerge. Gay marriage is the Trojan Horse of the radical postmodern ideological program. It's not just about granting "rights," as gay Americans are not a suspect class facing invidious discrimination. Redefining society's historic definintion of marriage paves the way for the destruction of the moral culture of right and wrong, good and evil.
Simply put, children and families are bad. Homosexual licentiousness is good.
See if you can figure that out in the context of the historic purpose of marriage as the institutional foundation for the regeneration of society.
God help this nation.
16 comments:
Not only have I begotten children, I even have one in the Army. Surely that makes me doubly dangerous.
Breeder (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "'Breeder' can be used as a derogatory term by childfree people of any sexual orientation to refer to parents who focus on their children and abandon their previous friends and lifestyle, or to women who give birth to many children. The phrases 'breeder, not parent' (BNP) or 'parent, not breeder' (PNB) are used by some childfree communities to differentiate between positive and negative parenting.[3]
The use of 'breeder' in this way is not new. It appears, for example, in Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, in which Swift repeatedly uses 'breeder' to refer to human breeding:
“The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couples who are able to maintain their own children, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom; but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders."
Donald also left out a good part (the whole first meaning of the highest voted definition, in fact) of the Urban Dictionary definition he quoted, which says that the term is used by childless couples to refer to those who are either bad parents in terms of discipline, spoil their children, or leave behind their childless friends (& occasionally, "friends," altogether) after the birth of their children.
One wonders, if "homosexual licentiousness" (that is, homosexuality, itself) is so bad, why does Donald advocate for giving those he believes practice homosexual licentiousness many (all?) of the same rights as married folks in the previous post?
While Donald keeps claiming it's gay folks and liberals with the ulterior motives for society, I often wonder whether he and those who believe as he does that have the (semi-) hidden agenda. Who really believes that Donald actually supports the rights and privileges that Susan Shell believes gay folks deserve, as members of society? For that matter, how many of you agree with Susan Shell?
I've asked Donald several times over the last 9 months - year, how the civil partnerships he seems to support should/would differ from heterosexual marriages he's defending, according to local, state, federal law. He's never taken the time to answer, and I've begun to wonder whether he knows, himself...
I do not think modern Leftism can be understood without pondering to the extent to which the whole ideology is based on a giant death-wish, or even death-worship.
Consider that to Right-Thinking Lefties, abortion is practically a holy sacrament. Moreover, we are all considered by the same people to be duty-bound to atone for every real or imagined sin committed by western (that is to say, Judeo-Christian) civilization, from ancient times forward.
The denial of religion and the promotion of atheism (practically shouted from the rooftops now) or else pseudo-science or nature worship, by the chic and trendy -- ties in also. Since the liberal and socialist (child that he is of the French Revolution) does not worship God, but only Man -- whose Godhead is manifested by Science, the death of Man means not eternal life and peace but nothingness. Denying God and salvation is essentially a wish for nothingness so it makes sense that liberals have a Death Wish.
The left of today is in a great moral crisis since the collapse of Communism: truly the Great Man-God that Failed. Beyond atheism, I think the big left ideological beast truly wants Paganism -- I think that's at the bottom of much of the Nature worship apparent in the Global Warming scare, which has only a small amount to do with science.
In the end, though, I suspect the mainstream Left will reject both science and Paganism, and move straight to Islam. Neither science nor Paganism can offer any kind of afterlife, and the barbarian Lefties are concerned with nothing so much as they are self-preservation. Islam gives them the best of all worlds -- an afterlife, and permits them to keep rejecting the West in general and America in particular, thus gratifying their Death Wish instincts. Since the liberal and socialist (child that he is of the French Revolution) does not worship God, but only Man -- whose Godhead is manifested by Science, the death of Man means not eternal life and peace but nothingness. Denying God and salvation is essentially a wish for nothingness so it makes sense that liberals have a Death Wish.
The left of today is in a great moral crisis since the collapse of Communism: truly the Great Man God that Failed. It's flirting with Paganism -- I think that's at the bottom of much of the Nature worship apparent in the Global Warming scare, which has only a small amount to do with science.
In the end, though, I suspect the mainstream Left will reject both science and Paganism, and move straight to Islam. Neither science nor Paganism can offer any kind of afterlife, and the barbarian Lefties are concerned with nothing so much as they are self-preservation. Islam gives them the best of all worlds -- an afterlife, and permits them to keep rejecting the West in general and America in particular, thus gratifying their Death Wish instincts.
THere is, of course, the whole element of selfisness that has to be considered, though I don't see how it can be logially defended. As our friends on the left take such a negative view of reproduction -- our good friend Amanda Marcotte being a prime example -- they engage in a huge discoonect. They expect a larger social safety net for everybody, yet run down the very people -- not themselves, surely! -- who breed the next generation, the people whose productivity will support the current crop of leftists in their old age.
If everybody followed her advice, Miss Marcotte needs to be very wealthy, or die in penury, because there would be no one to contribute to the Social Security system to support her. Yet, despite their great advice, our friends on the left know that they need us breeders, need to have our children take care of them, though they, certainly, would never deign to rear any of the next generation themselves.
Of course, considering their parenting advice, that might be a good thing.
repsac3 seems to have (intentionally?) left off part of the wikipedia entry. Here's the part omitted before his quote:
"Breeder is a term of disparagement used as a slur to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring, primarily by those who have not or will not, such as the childfree and homosexuals.
The use in homosexual groups is drawn from the fact that their sexual activity cannot lead to reproduction, whereas heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry, the original usage of the word.[1][2]"And the part after he quoted:
Swift's piece was meant as black humor, and refers to the breeding of children for cannibalism. Some parents resent being referred to as "breeders", and feel that the word unduly reduces the process of child-raising to animal husbandry.[4]
The term was part of a 2006 controversy in the heavily gay resort town of Provincetown, Massachusetts, when petitioners against same-sex marriage whose identity was published complained of having been called "breeders".
The word "breeder" was used in the movie "Chronicles of Riddick" by the Necromongers. You see, Necromongers don't have children - their armies are composed solely of converts.
Then again, maybe I just watch too much TV...
DFS:
Donald had that use of the term "breeder" covered in his post... I saw no reason to repeat it.
The point is, the term "breeder" isn't strictly (or even "most often used as" judging by both sources) a slur used by homosexuals to refer to heterosexuals, as Donald's post seems to imply. Both my post and yours make that fact clear.
And thank you for adding the rest of the citation. I considered posting the whole thing, but I'm accused of being too longwinded, sometimes. So thank you for doing it for me...
Repsac: What a loser ...
"I'm accused of being too longwinded, sometimes."
Not by me. A spammer, yes, but I've not set limits on your posts, so you're lying here.
And naturally, you'd leave off this part because it supports exactly my point:
"Breeder is a term of disparagement used as a slur to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring, primarily by those who have not or will not, such as the childfree and homosexuals."
And irrespective of different meanings, YGLESIAS IS USING "BREEDER" AS A TERM OF DERISION AND INSULT, and you're trying to forward a different definition so as to relieve another one of your nihilist allies from responsibility.
Yglesias is a freaking communist, and William Jacobson shows at his post how bad you people really are.
God, you have no decency.
I'm confoosed.
If heterosexual reproduction is bad, where are the homosexuals (who cannot reproduce themselves) going to get their future "partners" from?
Or, is that why the homosexuals are making such desperate inroads into government schools to promote their lifestyle at the earliest staged of our government "educational" system?
Of course, should America's birthrates wind up following the current European model, as it appears the homosexuals wish to have happen, the homosexual community had damn well better hope the Mexican illegal invaders in this country can out-breed the Muslims by a wide margin.If not, future homosexuals in this country are going to be in for a decidedly bad time.Something tells me the non-linear thinking homosexuals haven't bothered to consider that, or are they so self-centered and selfish that they do not care about the plight of future homosexuals in America?
Somehow, I don't think being beheaded by some guy named Akhmed with a dull, rusty sword is a very pleasant way to exit this life.
-Dave
Repsac: What a loser ...---
It's not about me, Donald. No need to call me names... ...unless that's all you've got.
R: "I'm accused of being too longwinded, sometimes."
Not by me.---
You've never accused me of being too longwinded?Seriously?: "I'm imposing a one-post limit on you, until I respond to your queries. If you can't make a point in under the word limit, let it go.
Americaneocon | Homepage | 03.27.08 - 8:33 pm |
A spammer, yes,---
I send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately? Isn't this a blog, and don't you accept--& in fact encourage--comments on your posts? Is spam any comment with which you disagree, the same way nihilists are anyone with whom you disagree?
but I've not set limits on your posts, so you're lying here.---
The quote above shows who's lying Donald, but even aside that... What does setting limits on one's posts have to do with accusing that someone of being longwinded? Is one really not possible without the other?
And naturally, you'd leave off this part because it supports exactly my point:
"Breeder is a term of disparagement used as a slur to describe heterosexuals who have produced or will produce offspring, primarily by those who have not or will not, such as the childfree and homosexuals."---
It makes both our points, Donald... It is a "slur" used by people who are childfree, regardless of their sexual orientation. Pretending that it's only used by homosexuals, as you did in the original post, is disingenuous. This quote, as well as the ones I posted and the one DFS posted, all support that same conclusion.
And irrespective of different meanings, YGLESIAS IS USING "BREEDER" AS A TERM OF DERISION AND INSULT, and you're trying to forward a different definition so as to relieve another one of your nihilist allies from responsibility.---
His use of the term is right in line with the definitions we all posted... He was being derogatory, but only to the kind of people who would dismiss a potential supreme court nominee automatically because of their sexual preference.
(And besides, the fact that you were not even aware of the term prior to reading it on Jacobson's blog should tell us all we need to know about how derisive or insulting he was being. The idea that "breeder" is anywhere near the same as "fag," which is the argument Jacobson puts forth, is patently ridiculous... The fact that you both had to look up the term should be proof enough of that.)
Yglesias is a freaking communist, and William Jacobson shows at his post how bad you people really are.---
Those offering comments at his post seem to disagree with you about Jacobson, and about the whole meme you two tried to sell. I'm also pretty sure Yglasias isn't a freaking communist, but I'll look into it.
God, you have no decency.---
It's still not about me, Donald...
It makes both our points, Donald... It is a "slur" used by people who are childfree, regardless of their sexual orientation. Pretending that it's only used by homosexuals, as you did in the original post, is disingenuous. This quote, as well as the ones I posted and the one DFS posted, all support that same conclusion.
We all seem to agree that the term is derogatory. Donald's original statement was
"For example, while reading William Jacobson's post, I learned just now that the term "breeder" is a derogatory epithet for heterosexuals"
To be fair, nowhere did I see Donald assert that it was only used by homosexuals. Indeed, whether it was or not didn't seem to be the issue. His point seemed to be that Yglesgias was being derogatory. Whether the term "breeder" is used exclusively by homosexuals or not seems to me to be quite irrelevant.
Actually, Reppy, yes, you are a liar.
I put a "one-post" limit on you, not a length limit, and you cite it here.
And here's straight from the horses mouth, at Jacobson's page:
"In a response to this post, Yglesias states that I am humorless, and that he falsely was accused of "anti-straight bigotry," which is not possible since he is a "hetero-American." He misses the point (or avoids it, take your pick). He was accused of using a bigoted word (which he now uses as the title of his response post), which in and of itself would be the sort of thing frequently used by liberals to get people they don't like fired (e.g., Don Imus). Whether he is a bigot or not is irrelevant to the point, as it was to Don Imus."
And as DFS says above about my post here, "His point seemed to be that Yglesgias was being derogatory."
Precisely.
Donald: You are funny. You have actually no idea on the basic usage of the term "Breeder." It is not considered an epithet, but it is used in a humorous way a lot. I'm sure it CAN be used as an epithet, but it clearly shows you have never spent more than five minutes with a gay person. (I know, I know--some of your best friends...you had dinner once with a homosexual...you taught one once...).
I think you need to go back to do your research a bit more, and by that I mean actually talking to people, not just looking stuff up on the internet, and extrapolating your information. You need field work.
But this did make me laugh.
Perhaps I found the origin: I first heard the term, "Breeder" in 1985 from one of the Nuns teaching at my daughters' Catholic school. I was rather shocked at the disparaging reference, she said the sisters use the term when referring to non-nuns.
Of course, there is that famous heterosexual band The Breeders.
Seriously.
Unfortunately for you, Donald, most people who come here can read (though it does seem that one or two choose to skip those parts that don't support their own biases.)
Rather than point out the inconsistencies in your last comment (3 tries again, btw), I'll just stand by what I've said already, and allow people find those inconsistencies for themselves.
Post a Comment