More Busybody Bums

Dr. Keith Ablow is a bum. I don’t like him. He doesn’t know me, but he wants me jailed. Why? Because I want to pee in a urinal. And no, amazingly, I’m not kidding or even exaggerating.

Dr. Ablow says that the government should demand that no one be allowed to build bathroom with urinals. As with any government process, if you disobey, you will be fined, jailed, or killed. Yes, for building a urinal, under Dr. Ablow’s suggestion.

Dr. Ablow goes on to complain and whine about wimpy men who whine to him about being embarrassed to pee. This lunatic with a degree actually even implies that if the government allows people to pee in a trough that they’re creating sex offenders!

I realize that, as with anything written on the Internet, that this may be an attempt at satire. I really hope it is, but sadly, it does not appear to be at all. If it is satire, I apologize to Dr. Ablow for calling him a bum. But if he’s serious about his opinion that we need government to punish people who want to pee in a urinal, then calling him a bum is being quite nice and reserved.

Hey Dr. Ablow, how about you run around and sell your books, and peddle your quack skills and let me pee wherever the hell I want to without you trying to throw me in jail!

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

22 Responses to “More Busybody Bums”

  1. loboinok says:

    I realize that, as with anything written on the Internet, that this may be an attempt at satire.

    Sadly, no… this guy is as serious as a heart-attack!

    Keep in mind that Ablow’s “profession”, once a field driven by science has, for the past 40 odd years, been a politically correct, agenda driven profession.

    Witness; “But, seriously, if we’re going to be fair and consistent as we try to treat men and women equally…”

    Just be grateful he’s not a Gynecologist.

  2. victoria says:

    Are you sure this guy is not one the O’s czars. I mean there is one who wants to give human rights to nature (actually I guess Van Jones is an ex czar) and one who wants to put birth control in our water or is it something that would sterilize everyone, I can’t remember which.

    • Adam says:

      That someone would theorize extending certain rights to plants or forests in the same respect that we have extended certain rights to animals over the centuries is not that kooky unless you’ve spent about 16 seconds thinking it over and you just hate liberalism in all it’s flavors.

      But then again Americans loathe dog and rooster fighting because it’s so cruel but then they head down to the grocery store and pick up some chicken, beef or pork from animals that suffered enormously in cruel and disgusting living standards only to finally be put to death. I don’t expect your generation to understand, Victoria, but mine is getting there. My children and grand children will do it better hopefully.

      And for the record no czar wants birth control in the water. You’re citing information about population control in the extreme that was listed in a science text book. The authors of text books do not share each and every view that the book contains.

      • Big Dog says:

        Extending rights to plants is KOOKY and if you have actually thought about it you are a kook. Plants and animals have no rights. They have no rights because they are not able to consciously think about them or exercise them. We, as humans, should not mistreat animals but they are here to provide us food and labor. How could a plant or an animal sue for abuse of its so called rights. It could not, only a human could do so on its behalf. If for some reason a tree or animal won some lawsuit, how would it get the money. It wouldn’t, some human would.

        Ah yes, it is becoming clear. This is about other humans who feel bad FOR the plants or animals.

        If you want to cut down trees on your property then you should be allowed to do so.

        Now Adam is a liberal who buys into this nutty stuff and he tells us that animals are treated terribly and then finally killed for food. Be careful Adam, you either cook plants alive and then eat them or you eat them alive. They can’t scream but they are being tortured by you. How long before you get hammered with abusing plants?

        • Adam says:

          “They have no rights because they are not able to consciously think about them or exercise them.”

          Corporations can’t think or exercise rights either but that hasn’t stopped them from having rights as an entity in a court of law. Animals already have certain rights protecting them against torture. When I said 16 seconds I wasn’t really expecting you to give me more clear examples of how little you have thought this through.

          “If you want to cut down trees on your property then you should be allowed to do so.”

          I’m not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. Not Holdren anyway.

          “They can’t scream but they are being tortured by you.”

          I’m reminded of how Blake once suggested the end result of veganism is to protect even viruses from abuse. This is not true of course. It’s also not true that plants have feelings and can be tortured. But you’ll do your best to make it seem silly to oppose an industry that is bad for our health, bad for the Earth, and bad for the animals themselves.

          • Blake says:

            Adam- If something can’t move outta the way when I pee on them, they get no rights.
            Next, you will be trying to tell me that I can’t mow my yard, because that is cruel to my grass- and speaking of grass, how about all those times you’re bonging that phat Thai stick you like so much? Cruelty?
            Please tell me you aren’t really thinking this through like that.
            I agree that we should treat animals in a “humane” fashion, but at the same time, you need to shut up about how they should have the same “rights” as people, unless you want to be subject to being butchered and dry-cured, perhaps smoked like a ham, because that is essentially what you are doing- lowering humans to a meat product- and I gotta tell you, you look like you might have excellent marbling.

            • Adam says:

              “…but at the same time, you need to shut up about how they should have the same “rights” as people…”

              And yet I never said that. Who said that? Who said anything close to that?

  3. Eoj Trahneir says:

    Consider this; “…lots of men have told me they don’t understand why any sensible person would ever have thought up the idea of having them essentially expose themselves to one another while urinating…”
    The guy deals all day in mental and psycho cases. So the people he refers to when he says, “lots of men,” are the sick-o’s and weird-o’s. The wanna-be-faggots butt are afraid to ask’s, the liberals and the child molesters.
    He does not hear the opinions of normal people, because normal people don’t need shrinks to help them think.

    But mark my words! the “all-encompassing compassionate left” will embrace this fellow weirdo, and ennoble him! Make him a leader! A god! A prophet!

    Pee-shy politics, what next?

  4. loboinok says:

    That someone would theorize extending certain rights to plants or forests in the same respect that we have extended certain rights to animals over the centuries is not that kooky unless you’ve spent about 16 seconds thinking it over and you just hate liberalism in all it’s flavors.

    It’s not only kooky, it’s one of the most base forms of stupidity people have ever been infected with. Who, in their right mind, would attempt to lower humanity to the level of their dinner? Man doesn’t create rights.

    Nothing wrong with classic liberalism… what little is left of it. What conservatives detest is Maxism, Communism, fascism, Socialism and most other ‘ism’ poorly disguised as ‘liberalism’ and the cowards that lack the courage to be upfront about it!

    But then again Americans loathe dog and rooster fighting because it’s so cruel but then they head down to the grocery store and pick up some chicken, beef or pork from animals that suffered enormously in cruel and disgusting living standards only to finally be put to death.

    … you’re a city boy, ain’t you?

    • Adam says:

      “Who, in their right mind, would attempt to lower humanity to the level of their dinner?”

      No one. It would be like saying we lowered white people to the level of black people to extend the rights African Americans were due by birth but they were not getting. Obviously race is not a perfect comparison to humans versus plants and other animals. My point is simply that as our culture has gained more understanding of the world around us and how we interact with it from the standpoint of climate, ethics, and our own health, we have changed our legal system in small ways to account for that. It sounds kooky now but someday it will be normal.

      “…you’re a city boy, ain’t you?”

      No. I was born and raised in the country. I support fishing, hunting and farming for our own food. I just don’t support use of animals in such ways as factory farming for food. The animals suffer and die in disgusting conditions that are abnormal to their biology. The process wastes insane amounts of water and grain, pollutes the ecosystem to a large degree, and the food it produces isn’t that great for us.

      If you want to have a conversation about animal ethics then I’d love that but you’d have to set aside a few assumptions about me first.

      • Big Dog says:

        So tell me Adam, if plants can’t feel anything then why do they need rights. How do you extend rights to something that has no capacity to think or feel and what would those rights involve.

        Corporations have rights because they are comprised of individuals. They are an entity because they are made up of people and that is why they have those rights in a court of law.

        A forest (a corporation in the plant world) is made up of plants and none of them have any rights. In order to have a right you must be able to understand and think about them. If no one is opposing cutting down trees then what rights are they looking for with regard to plants? It is moronic. No plant and no animal can ever sue or fight for any so called right. These things would only have a right bestowed upon it by MAN. Whereas man’s rights come from a power higher than man (and that is not government for you liberal weenies out there). We have laws against cruelty to animals, true but we raise the food EAT.

        You say that the industry is bad for the Earth (animals will be here one way or the other), bad for the animals (have you seen how they treat each other, watch the Discovery Channel sometime) and bad for our health. There you go, typical liberal deciding about things that involve the health of others. We have been through this before. Humans are designed to eat meat. It is true that people can live without meat but they are designed to eat it and having some meat in your diet is healthier than eating only plants. In any event, none of that matters because it is none of your business if people eat things that are not healthy. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

        Liberalism is bad for your health but you have not tried to ban that. I understand why you want to give plants rights. You can then say they will vote Democrat and most liberals are vegetables anyway.

        • Adam says:

          “So tell me Adam, if plants can’t feel anything then why do they need rights.”

          That’s a key question. You can find out more by reading the intro to the book. Here is an interesting quote for the naysayers in this thread:

          Now to say that the natural environment should have rights is not to say anything as silly as that no one should be allowed to cut down a tree. We say human beings have rights, but–at least as of the time of this writing–they can be executed. Corporations have rights, but they cannot plead the fifth amendment; In re Gault gave 15-year-olds certain rights in juvenile proceedings, but it did not give them the right to vote. Thus, to say that the environment should have rights is not to say that it should have every right we can imagine, or even the same body of rights as human beings have. Nor is it to say that everything in the environment should have the same rights as every other thing in the environment.

          It’s a crappy scanned copy of the intro to the book but I do find it incredibly interesting.

          “We have laws against cruelty to animals, true but we raise the food EAT.”

          We have laws mostly against cruelty to cute animals and pets. That is my entire point. Until we make it illegal to treat the animals we eat like hell I say we legalize dog fighting and cock fighting. I’d rather visit a dog fight than a factory farm.

          “…animals will be here one way or the other…”

          What does that even mean? I’m not opposed to animals existing. I’m opposed to raising and subjecting millions of animals of massive cruelty for the sole purpose of provide cheap, profitable food for people.

          “…have you seen how they treat each other, watch the Discovery Channel sometime…”

          Have you seen how animals live in factory farms? Animals treating each other badly in nature is nothing like what we subject animals to simply for cheap meat. The cheap meat comes at the expense of the animals, the planet and our own health.

          “We have been through this before. Humans are designed to eat meat.”

          Not eating meat at all would be better. That’s not my point. I’m suggesting eating factory farmed meats specifically is bad for our health. It’s not just that the cost cutting methods for production lead to diseased and disgusting meat products many times but that the entire process end to end is hard on our ecosystem as well and endangers all of us that have to live with it.

      • loboinok says:

        I just don’t support use of animals in such ways as factory farming for food.

        And you’re fortunate to live in a country that still, to some degree, respects your freedom to not support it by not consuming products of factory farming while leaving people like me to support those who own their own businesses and farms to do with their property what they damn well please.

        That, Adam, is what most of these issues boil down to; private property rights.

        As far as I can tell you do not recognize the Authority for natural rights from whence legal rights derive yet would support unconstitutionally extending rights to other’s property to permit government to unconstitutionally interfer with their property rights.

        Have you noticed yet that everytime liberals push for rights, it always ends with the American people losing rights, freedoms, property and money? All of their “successes” are furthering the unraveling of the American fabric and adding to the cultural rot.

        You are part of the extreme minority that consistantly fail to convince a sufficient number of people to affect the free market and thus must resort to using judicial activism.

        I was born and raised in the country. I support fishing, hunting and farming for our own food.

        That’s a good. If you get your way, that may be the only way to survive and not be a hypocrite!

        • Adam says:

          “That, Adam, is what most of these issues boil down to; private property rights.”

          Private property rights goes straight back to my first point. One of my main concerns is that you cannot treat your pets on your own property the way you could treat your farm animals. That is a gap in the consciousness of this country. If somebody caught you with thousands of cats in small cages they couldn’t even stand up in and you were going to fatten and sell them for profit you’d go to jail and you’d probably make the news nation wide. If you got caught running an operation with a bunch of puppies that you sorted by sex and then ran the male puppies through a grinder to kill them you’d probably go to prison for life.

          “You are part of the extreme minority that consistently fail to convince a sufficient number of people to affect the free market and thus must resort to using judicial activism.”

          I’m not as extreme as you want to pretend I am. I may hold a few non-mainstream views on animal rights for instance but on most of my core issues I’m part of the majority of people in this country. My side supports the way we use government to balance the free market and prevent profit driven corporations from running amok. My side supports the way we tax the rich higher than we tax the poor. My side supports the way we spend tax dollars to provide social safety nets for the poor, disabled and retired Americans. My side couldn’t care less what homosexuals are doing and whether they want to serve in the military or get married. Each of these issues places me in the majority of this country.

  5. Adam says:

    As a side note: It’s amazing how your stubbornness and opposition to anything that tastes like liberalism leads you to make such poor arguments in support of amazingly bad things like factory farms. That was what I suggested to Victoria and then every single person that has spoke on the subject in this thread has come with completely faulty arguments and straw men. I find this subject interesting so it’s sad to be confronted with such unsound reasoning.

    • Big Dog says:

      I am afraid not Adam. If you had simply made the argument about factory farming then people could have debated that issue which is certainly a valid one to look at. You, on the other hand, started by saying that extending rights to plants like we have animals is not that kooky for anyone who spent 16 seconds thinking about it. The implication being you are so much smarter because you have spent time on this issue unlike the uneducated among us. Animals have no rights except what man gives them which means man is superior to animals. They cannot extend rights to us. Now, this book uses moot arguments because it compares rights to people and groups of people to the environment. The people or groups of people are able to exercise their rights and fight for things that are in their interest, The environment is unable to do this.

      The “rights” of the environment would have to be protected by a person or group of people. So one person would have to accuse another on behalf of the environment as to what violation occurred. The environment could not accuse and has no awareness of the alleged infraction. In the end game one group of people is pitted against another on behalf of an entity that has no awareness. It ends up being two groups of people arguing their beliefs. The environmental abuse of rights is based on what people feel, not what the environment might have been concerned with…

      • Adam says:

        “The implication being you are so much smarter because you have spent time on this issue unlike the uneducated among us.”

        I didn’t call myself smarter and I didn’t call you uneducated. I simply stated the truth. You have not thought long on this and you have not read anything about it. Otherwise you wouldn’t be rehashing simplistic arguments like “the environment could not accuse and has no awareness of the alleged infraction.” My whole point was simply that the right has called Holdren absurd for a view you have absolutely no time considering or researching. You just keep proving that.

        “If you had simply made the argument about factory farming then people could have debated that issue…”

        So what you’re saying is if I hadn’t made you think I think you’re stupid that you would not have not used faulty arguments in order to simply oppose anything you think is liberal on principle?

  6. Adam says:

    Here is another very interesting and balanced summary of factory farming. I challenge every reader here to read that summary and tell me you honestly support factory farming afterward. If you do that’s fine but tell me why.

    • Blake says:

      Ok, I’ll bite, but with a caveat- We NEED factory farming- it is not as if the entitled brats we raise now want to keep the family farm, nor can do the hard work necessary to keep the farm viable, so factory farms have become a big, (but unfortunately necessary)business here-.
      The small farmer and rancher has it hard these days, because all the tax credits go to either those too big to fail, or asshats like Springsteen, and Bon Jovi, or Sam Donaldson- all people who do NOT need the credits, but get them anyway.
      Unless and until farming and ranching is viable for the smaller family units, factory farms are what we get.
      Now as to the waste, there should be a better way to use it in the “green” scheme of things. (Like perhaps an enema for Van Jones).

      • Adam says:

        This is a similar sentiment as with cheap energy and reliable transportation. We need them as much as we need cheap food. At what cost though? We don’t have to keep doing it all the wrong way just simply because we can’t do without these things.

  7. carter says:

    Dude, look at new construction and you’ll see generic men/women bathrooms. There’s a comode in each but no pisser on the wall. So do you leave the seat up or down, lol, I leave it up.

  8. oilyryzer says:

    I personally can’t believe it took 5 days to get back on the original subject. From urinals to animal rights to factory farms to green construction, and finally back to urinals. Adam really has a knack for steering all around an issue, must be a cabbie. Obviously a Carter/Clintonite lib graduate, have some more kool-aid, son.