3/16/2013 5:53am, #51
Freud had two separate theories about neurosis. His first theory was published in 1895. In the first theory, he postulated that neurotic anxiety was caused by blocked unconscious impulses. These impulses could be blocked due to unfulfilled sexual tension; in other words sexual deprivation. So if a person was deprived of sex that person would become neurotic and have a lot of anxiety. However, the person would not know it is due to an unsuccessful sex life because this part of the process (Id and pleasure principle) is unconscious.
One of my students, a black female, invited a white male friend, who then proceeded to write a screed of condemnation at the very idea of such behavior.
Last edited by It is Fake; 3/16/2013 6:03am at .
3/16/2013 6:44am, #52
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Chicago / Michigan
Not only is this guy's head so far up his ass that he can clean his molars and groom his eyebrows with one stroke of a single brush, but his writing is terrible. The effort to sound impressive causes him to lose track of little things like subject-verb agreement.
I think Fake should use one of those nasty phallic pens (or its virtual equivalent) and grade his little essay in idiocy for form and content, then post it with comments under the original on Facebook. I've rarely seen anything that screams "pretentious, semi-educated asshole in need of correction" more loudly.
One syntactic highlight for me was the sentence whose most natural reading is the pronouncement that the three reasons he will only stab (with?) knives and "poles" (spears?), etc., are
1. he has "an sense of dignity,"
2. he doesn't subscribe to "poetic vigilantism," and
3. he doesn't subscribe to justice.
Truly a hero in the making.
I am worried for him, though. What if he is attacked and the only means of defense at hand is a pointed stick?
3/16/2013 6:57am, #53
You have no clue how hard it was to ignore "an sense" and his weird run on comma spliced sentences.
I tend to coma splice myself, which drives me up the wall and his mistakes drove me nuts.
3/16/2013 7:03am, #54
3/16/2013 8:13am, #55
3/16/2013 8:38am, #56
3/16/2013 9:14am, #57
Come on Sam, you can post. There is no need to lurk and be angry at my words!
3/16/2013 9:29am, #58
I'd like to see your next seminar focus on out voting your rapist. We need to teach women how to call a vote, how to verbally sway the pre-vote debate to your side, and how to break the inevitable 1-1 tie (without using anything phallic).
3/16/2013 9:48am, #59
3/16/2013 10:27am, #60
While I would never defend a rapist, and believe that all women ought to learn self defense in order to deter the psychologically deranged from attacking, it is not feasible to expect absolutely every woman from the ages of 1 month to 110 years to learn tactics of self defense.
-other stuff- and then:
The use of a pen/pencil to defend the rights of women is far more effective when used to produce words, especially when it ultimately leads to an attack of the hegemonic structures which produce the sexually and psychologically deranged. A detailed study of cultural hegemony applied to gender theory might have far reaching consequences in finding the genealogy of rape, opposed to reactive 'just in case' scenarios proposed in self defense classes. Unfortunately the literary/intellectual attack of such institutions often goes disregarded, while reactive self defense initiatives seem to be the only attempt we can make at solving this widespread social disease.
Sometimes traffic lights don't work, we should do away with them altogether.
Its obviously 100% more effective to write 'rape is bad' than to train how to deal with those rapists who presumably can't read..
This guy will never post here. Though it would do him good.
Happy to be wrong though, good entertainment..
also...defense haha clever boy.