Dopey Asexuals Who Don’t Watch House Create Really Stupid Petition

I am an asexual (or Gray-A, if you want to get down to it, which is even more relevant). I am a virgin and I plan to keep it that way for the forseeable, regardless of whether my peers find that weird. Well-I’ll-just-be-weird-then.

Several possibly-retarded asexuals out there in Intarwebbia have begun a disturbingly dopey petition to the “Vice President of Broadcast Operations” (what?) about an episode of the program House that involved two asexuals who were Gray-A, saying that the “portrayal” of asexuals was false/wrong/bad/herpderp. The petition states:

The House episode “Better Half” which aired on January 23, 2012, represented asexuality very poorly by attributing it to both medical illness and deception. The episode encourages viewers to meet asexuality with skepticism rather than acceptance, to probe asexual people for causes of our “condition” rather than to accept us as a part of the natural spectrum of human sexual diversity. This misinformation could have severe negative consequences on asexual people around the world, especially youth, who are struggling to come to terms with themselves and find acceptance. We ask the executive producers of House and the executives at Fox to reconsider portrayals of asexual characters and engage the community to find narratives that are appropriate depictions of asexual people and relationships.

As an asexual (and therefore having a credible opinion), I declare these ignoramuses to be mentally incompetent for the responsibility of tying their own shoes. House is not a documentary about medical cases, by which sound advice may be procured! Any assertion of actual medicine practiced on House can taken as authentic medical accuracy with as much confidence as one might have in the expectation of a job well done upon assigning a giraffe to organize the Republican National Convention using only coconuts, in groups of three, in Swahili.. yesterday.

It’s a fictional show (FICTIONAL!) about a doctor who has the bedside manner of nutrient-deprived cougar loosed inside a closed room filled ankle-deep with jackrabbits, who deals with patients of varying maladies with a blunt-coldness that is funny mostly to I’m-sorry-my-brilliant-joke-offended-you-/sarcasm kind of people. Did you see that fictional bit? Was that fictional portion unclear?

What we have here is actually a case of a strange demographic of hyper-political people, who insist that “characters who have a unique trait” are not, ever, merely characters in a fictitious story that appears on their TV screens — heavens no! — but instead are actually spokespeople and/or official ambassadors of all people of the world who posses a vaguely-similar idiosyncrasy.

His Noodly Goodness forbid, that fictional characters be >> in a completely made-up story, about totally made-up individuals, that exhibit a trait that a small swath of actual citizens also possess << ..be THEIR OWN PERSON, instead of some kind of stereotype or representative of those trait-holders across the globe.

The people who wrote up this petition and those who signed it are painting on their foreheads a giant L in that kind of permanent black marker that is smelly to High Hrothgar as soon as you pull the cap off.

Further, the people upon whom this supposedly unfair stereotype might be pressed — the kind of person that makes general presumptions about the authenticity of maladies by watching dark comedies involving a doctor with a fake accent — are also retarded if they actually do add this supposed stereotype to their portfolio of other such mass-assertions regarding a people-group they’ve never encountered as dictated to them by the bountiful wisdom of overtly untrue television programs.

Dhimmitude and Obamacare: No Connection

There’s an email forward making the rounds suggesting that Obama’s medical insurance requirement actually secretly establishes a pro-Muslim legal precedent of some kind, under the name Dhimmitude on “page 107”..

The Snopes article about it says that there are exemptions for religious groups but does not offer any specific examples.

While Dhimmitude is a real thing (and a smart one, in my opinion — I think medical insurance altogether is an absurd waste of time and money that only contributes to the high cost of medical, rather than preventing it), it’s not noted in the health care bill. Further, I wouldn’t even bother suggesting that the health care bill even has “pages”, depending on what font you print it out as, because it’s just text that can be resized and still retain its original purpose.

Dhimmitude is not actually an Islamic concept, per se — it is a sharia law concept, which is the a legal system employed by many countries dominated by Muslim populations, but isn’t precisely tied to “Islam” necessarily. The word comes from adding the suffix “-itude” (wiki) alongside sharia’s Dhimma concept, of a state whose citizens are granted residence in exchange for taxation, whereas “Dhimmi” would be a citizen of that state.

The writer of the forward unreasonably suggests that the bill’s “conscious exemption”, as applied to religious groups, caters specifically to Islam and is therefore some variety of “establishment” of Islam into American culture — when instead it could just as easily be applied to the Amish, as establishment of an Amish foothold in the US government. The word “Dhimmitude” does not even appear in the text of the bill.

Pit Bull Owners Flunk Listening Comprehension Over McDonalds Ad, Begin Growling

In the news lately has been how McDonald’s has rolled over and played dead to pressure from (surely a narrow) segment of their customer base — people who either own a domesticated dog species “pit bull” or otherwise have a strange fixation on promoting a healthy image of them — after McDonald’s ran a radio advert comparing the act of trying something new as being less risky than trying to pet a stray pit bull, among other more-risky topics.

Okay first, all jokes aside about how pit bull owners are sloped-forehead retarded — the advert was not suggesting that stray pit bulls in general were risky (which they are), or that “food safety” was the topic.

A Sensible Interpretation of the Advert
The advert, above, was about the risk of trying something new.

Now, trying a new McDonald’s product is predictably REMARKABLY NOT RISKY. I think this should be fairly obvious, unless you have an aversion or allergy to an ingredient (in which case all food, McDonald’s or otherwise, could be suspect).

Now that the premise has been established that there is NO RISK from trying a new McDonald’s meal item, a list of other riskier activities is listed:

1. Petting a stray pit bull.
2. Shaving your head to see how it would look.
3. Naming your son “Sue”.
4. Giving your friends your Facebook password.

Given this scaling, with the level of risk for trying something new at McDonalds being ZERO, and giving your friends your Facebook password being 4, on a scale of 0 to 4, petting a stray pit bull is only rank number one — AND YET PIT BULL OWNERS ARE OUTRAGED!

Pit Bull Owners Outraged At The Ad Flunked Creative Writing
I would put petting a stray pit bull, on this scale, probably at number 2 at least. Naming your son Sue wouldn’t be terrible — since the trend has already been established. I had an old gent neighbor named Jan, and Ashley is a newly popular boy name, so Sue isn’t terribly far off, kids will tease any other kid about anything.

It is fairly unanimous and common knowledge, however, that petting stray animals is dangerous. The point is not specifically about pit bulls (whereby pit bulls are mentioned simply as an example) being dangerous, but that STRAY animals (in general) is risky.

The inclusion of “pit bull” is merely by example of a stray animal (out of all stray animals) risky to pet. The ad could just as easily have said petting a stray little mouse, or a stray bunny rabbit, or a stray dog of any other breed.

People who lack understanding about using style in writing would predictably flunk the reading comprehension portion if this were to appear on a standardized test.

Pit bulls being animals, petting stray pit bulls would be risky. The web is generally in agreement with the fact that petting stray animals is risky behavior. RISKY in this case, suggests that DANGER IS POSSIBLE but not necessarily that doing so is always dangerous.

A high RISK suggests that the confidence or ability to determine a dangerous situation from otherwise is difficult to immediately establish, that caution should be advised — with any animal. Strays present a situation of uncertainty, as to whether the animal, of any breed, has had proper immunizations, has been declawed, or isn’t injured, isn’t upset, has no parasites, hasn’t had proper nutrition and is madly hungry, or a whole host of other perfectly plausible issues with being stray. The emphasis of the example of pit bull is that it is STRAY and therefore RISKY about whether these variables are ideal for the safety of petting.

The problem with the visual portion of the above “alert” going out is the omission of the word “stray” and instead suggest that the advertisement instead claims petting “pit bulls” is risky. So essentially, pit bull enthusiasts are getting upset over an advertisement that was misquoted to them and they trusted that source enough to act out upon it without bothering to check out the facts first.

If you are a pit bull activist and checking things out first before you get crazy mad over nothing, to you I say: Bravo.

If you are a pit bull activist and got crazy over nothing before checking things out first, to you I say: You’re a dope.

In summary, Reasons People Are Upset About The Advert:

1. They can’t figure out the purpose of the ad.
2. They can’t understand how literary style offers “pit bull” as a random example of a stray animal that is risky to approach.
3. They’re unable to determine that the ad is actually, by comparison, calling the topic they’re upset out LESS RISKY than other fairly UNRISKY behaviors.
4. They’re dopes.