Goodbye, common sense! Wanker 1 and Wanker 2 complain about sensible changes to passport form

Today the Daily Mail published an article titled ‘Now Parent 1 and Parent 2 appear on PC passport form’.  This is obviously the news that the form which is required for a passport will be changed so that it has ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ on it. What does this mean? Well, in the past applicants have had to include information on their parents and the form has always had ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on. In the article by Jack Doyle (wanker 1) it says ‘they will be given the option of naming ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’.’. I presume this means that either  the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be replaced with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ or that ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ will be given as an option as an addition. Why are they doing this? Well it’s obvious really- with the number of children being adopted by same sex parents increasing it is probably quite awkward to fill in the passport form if you have 2 ‘mothers’ or 2 ‘fathers’. But maybe it should be awkward for these parents? Maybe children with gay parents shouldn’t be allowed passports? I mean what if they go on holiday and give us normal British people a bad reputation? I am obviously joking but I wouldn’t be surprised if the silly twats from Family Education Trust (FET) thought these ridiculous things.

The director of FET, Norman Wells (wanker 2), said: ‘Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but have quite distinct roles to play in the care and nurture of their children.’ What an archaic view this man actually has. It is true, however, that there are some things which a mother can do which a father cannot, such as breast feeding. But not all mothers can breast feed. Do babies just die? No. We have milk you can buy for babies and with this milk fathers, or anyone else really, can feed a baby. So what then are the distinct roles? Well I could draw on my own personal experience but that would be pointless because that would just be explaining the roles which my parents had and not actually addressing what the distinct roles are. Surely it changes from one set of parents to another. Not all men are good at doing male things and not all women are good at doing female things because everyone is different. Why can’t people see this? The angry voice in my head is saying “it’s because they are twats”.

The FET twat went on to say: ‘To speak of “parent 1” and “parent 2” denigrates the place of both fathers and mothers.’ What the fuck does that even mean? Well I looked it up, ‘denigrates’ that is, because I haven’t seen that word before. According to Collins English Dictionary ‘denigrate’ means:

1. (tr) to belittle or disparage the character of; defame

Eh? So Norman reckons that putting ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ on a form so that everyone can fill it in belittles the place of mothers and fathers? Norman Wells’ existence denigrates the place of our species. If you thought Norman couldn’t get any worse then read on: ‘Much as the equality and diversity social engineers might wish it were otherwise, it still takes a father and a mother to produce a child.’ Yes Norman you are quite right it does take a mother and father to produce a child but what the fuck does that have to do with this form you stupid cunt? It doesn’t take a father and mother to raise a child though - and that is what this change of form relates to. Also, isn’t it really weird that he talks about ‘the equality and diversity social engineers’ as if they are a bad people? Isn’t a social engineer just someone who wants to change society? So an equality and diversity social engineer is someone who wants more equality and diversity? How can that ever be a bad thing?

Jack Doyle also clearly disagrees with the changes and that they are being made because of ‘pressure from the gay lobby’ seems to irritate him. He actually calls gay rights groups ‘the gay lobby’ how mad is that? Well Jack Doyle must be in the twat lobby.

Now back to Norman, who also said: ‘It is high time ministers started to represent the interests of the country as a whole and not capitulate to every demand made by a vocal and unrepresentative minority.’ I would fully agree with this point if the form was going to be changed to ‘gay parent 1’ and ‘gay parent 2’ because that would be specifically making the form for a minority only. What it boils down to is that Norman Wells is angry because a form is being changed to allow more people to fill it in easily. Even if that change only helps a minority it still doesn’t make it harder for the majority so why is he even bothered? It’s so annoying that people like Norman Wells think we shouldn’t change things for a group of people just because they are considered a minority.  But even if that minority is 1% of the population it would still mean over 600 thousand people! By the same argument we could remove ‘black’ from the ethnicity section of a form because it would only affect a minority.

If this Daily Mail article made you as angry as it did me then you will be fucking fuming when you read this:

http://mullenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/10/what-is-normal-when-mother-and-father-become-parent-1-and-parent-2.html

Twat (Peter Mullen)

It’s basically some twat’s opinion on the story, a bit like my blog really, except this person is a horrible, horrible man, still a bit like my blog I suppose. Well he’s definitely a different kind of horrible twat, he’s a dangerous horrible twat. He is Revd Peter Mullen (wanker 3, funny (but accidental) considering his ‘slippery slope’ argument) and the link above is to his blog. I can’t believe how much of a horrible twat Peter is. To analyse this horrible twat’s arguments would be even more of a waste of time as the analysing I have already done because their ridiculous thoughts and rationale are so blatantly stupid. But I will give you a flavour of what the Revd Peter Mullen is like:

‘I am against prejudice of all sorts. But there has to be some sort of normality according to which minorities can be tolerated.’

If this made you want to punch something or someone do not go on to read his blog. Bet you will though.

Being liberal: Can I still be angry?

I think to be liberal you have get past an ‘anger barrier’. What I mean by this is that it is quite easy to get angry when you hear about ‘foreigners stealing our jobs’, ‘young immigrant gangs’, ‘lazy jobless on benefits’. And when people get angry they do stupid things and come up with stupid solutions to exaggerated problems. I think to be liberal you have to get past this initial knee jerk anger to allow yourself to think logically. And the people that do this, all of them, realise that these problem are: not real problems or they have been exaggerated or they are small, bad consequence of doing a lot of good. Once you actually look at the statistics and history of immigration in this country (UK) then you quickly realise that we need ‘foreigners’ to help the country develop and if it wasn’t for immigration we wouldn’t have the Britain we have today. Only a very angry person can deny such blatant evidence and fact.

The problem of young ethnic minorities in gangs and being involved in crime is a problem (although it is massively over exaggerated in my opinion). But angry right wing people try to blame the ethnic minorities rather than thinking logically and realising that many of these individuals are poor, uneducated and have been brought up in an environment where it is easy to turn to crime. Had the white middle class Daily Mail reader (or ‘twats’ as I like to call them) been brought up in the same environment they would most probably have ended up in the same gangs.

I too sometimes get angry at the thought of a lazy person sitting around doing nothing all day but still getting free money, which the taxes I pay (not any more though because I have just recently become a student again but I wrote this when I was working so fuck you) are paying for. But beyond that anger and completely surpassing it in volume is the happiness I feel that we live in a time in which people who are really struggling due to mental or physical problems can be helped by those individuals who do not have any problems at all. How fucking amazingly wonderful is it that we have job seekers allowance and various benefits? It is surely the sign of a logical, rational yet compassionate modern society. I would rather everyone who needs benefits get them and some individuals who don’t need them get them than no one at all geting them. But I think a lot of right wing individuals would rather no one got them.

In my opinion, which all of this really is, anger can be a good thing too. Because without anger we would not try to change things we don’t like. But anger based on truth is the key. Many liberals are angry, myself definitely included, are angry but they are angry that people are angry about issues they don’t know the facts about or they can’t even back up their angry opinions with evidence.  It is really quite annoying because I think I would be a much calmer person if other people didn’t get angry, the bastards rile me up! But at the same time I like that they make me angry otherwise I wouldn’t argue with them or try to tell other people why I think it is bad to be right wing and why it is bad that people are trying to change things based on nothing but their own personal belief.

However, there needs to be a good level of angry, a balance of anger. Some liberals are so angry that they too start acting based on personal belief. These people will belief information if it supports their already established opinion without even checking if the info is based on evidence. We have all met these people; they are generally the ‘anti-science liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. They have gone beyond listening to evidence to listening to themselves and like minded people. They believe that everything should be ‘natural’ without knowing what natural means (who even does know to be honest?). They are just as irritating as very right wing people but they at least are not a dangerous. Generally the worst an extreme liberal will do is tut at you or demand that trees have the same rights as humans. There are also the really strange ‘right wing liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. These are the extreme liberals that would hurt you, the ones who would dig up your relatives. This is because they are extremely liberal in one or a few political issues but are quite right wing in how they deal with it. These are the liberals who are fuelled by anger (and a bit of tofu) and ignore reason.

So how do you get the perfect balance of anger? Nobody knows surely but I think we should always try our best to calm down, have a cup of tea and a scone and just think, read and learn about things and then come up with the most informed opinion we can given the relatively short and meaningless amount of time we have. Also, we should get all the really right wing people together and either kill them or use them as slaves. No. That’s the angry irrational me which, I am trying to fight every day. So maybe a better suggestion is that we should ridicule them for the angry idiots they are. To be honest it’s not that hard.