Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Did they really chant “you can have sex with animals or whatever”?

Did they really chant “you can have sex with animals or whatever”?

Is there anything #OccupyWallStreet protesters will not chant responsively?  Apparently not.

“Jump the shark” doesn’t begin to describe this sequence of responsive chanting (I think they call it human microphone or whatever).

We saw the responsive chanting at Occupy Atlanta, but this one takes the cake, as the crowd mindlessly repetively chants, “You can have sex with animals or whatever.”  (at 1:00 mark of video below, h/t IsraellyCool)

Here’s the transcript from the Occupy Wall Street website:

The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible.

No, they were not advocating sex with animals, but what makes them think you can have sex with animals?  Do they think about what they are chanting, or are they zombies?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

As much as I hate to defend them, it appears they’re discussing what’s physically possible vs. what’s socially permissible. While it may be morally repugnant to have sex with animals, it’s certainly physically possible.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Awing1. | October 10, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    No, the text is pretty clear the speaker is talking about media treatment making some things permissible (e.g. sex with animals) while economic justice is not considered permissible, “You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy.” But again, the point is not that they were advocating it, but that the crowd just repeated the line in unison.

      It seems to me they’re talking at first about what’s physically possible “You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics.” But after reading the full transcript, I doubt even they know what they’re talking about.

      … Point taken.

        RKae in reply to Awing1. | October 10, 2011 at 5:50 pm

        And therein lies a BIG distinction! We’ve always said, “If they can put a man on the moon, then how come they can’t [fill in the blank]?” In their lingo, the phrase translates as, “If we can have sex with animals…” As usual, these dirtbags see everything through the twisted kaleidoscope of sexual deviancy. It’s the be-all-end-all for them; their “gold standard” of what’s possible.

” Do they think about what they are chanting, or are they zombies?”

That was a rhetorical question, right?

I know this type of music isn’t your style for Video of the Day, but for some reason I think this could be the soundtrack for OWS.
Ozzy Osbourne – Crazy Train

Talk about going off the rails!

“WHAT DO WE WANT?”

Huh? Whut? D’oh!

“WHEN DO WE WANT IT?”

Whatevs man. Dude is this gonna take much longer? Cause I gotta go see my therapist and my 2pm psychology 101 audit.

The whole world is watching and most of them are laughing.

A few others are thinking thoughts of imperial/religious conquest being in sight.

[…] Occupy Atlanta call and response: “You can have sex with animals or whatever.” […]

After playing this video clip to some animals … they told me they’d rather be eaten.

The OccupyWallStreet crowd is entirely made up of zombies. If they were any worse, they would be walking around with their hands up moaning “braaaiiiinnnnnssssss” and making gnashing sounds with their teeth. They couldn’t eat each other because between the lot of them they don’t have a single one.

SOMEBODY there IS advocating sex with animals, I guarantee you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m sure that there is at least a tiny subgroup there from the advocating sex-with-children crowd, too (could that be the “whatever” to which they are referring?). No, the media will NEVER report on them, because that would instantly vaporize the protests with the backlash from the REAL 99% of the nation.

The nature of these “leaderless” movements without clearly stated goals causes all sorts of the fringe “undesirable” political movements to attach themselves, because nobody is there to push them back out, nor can they be pushed out without violating the “organic” nature of the movement.

Notice that even some of the protesters can’t believe that they actually repeated it (from the tense, halting, partial laughter in the crowd immediately after it was “echoed.”

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm

Actually, Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer sometimes pens bizarre columns in the New York Times that most people find offensive to draw attention to himself. Singer has made the case that the primary reason why having sex with an animal should present a moral dilemma is if the animal is hurt or harmed during the activity. For example if the human is aware he has a disease that can be transferred to the animal during sexual contact with the animal, then it would be wrong to have sex with the animal.

Singer is the same guy who says intentionally taking the life of an infant should be legally different from intentionally murdering a “person”. To him, because newborn infants are not conscious of their surroundings — they’re not sentient beings — and they are totally dependent on others for their survival, then newborn infants do not deserve the legal rights and protections of a “person”. Taken to the extreme, since the only real difference between a late stage fetus and a newborn infant is that one is in the mother’s womb and the other is outside of it, then he wonders why “post birth abortion” is wrong during the first year or so after birth?

This is the kind of crap people spend $50K a year on tuition to “educate” their children at one of the best universities in the world.

    I knew I recognized Peter Singer’s name from somewhere the moment I read it in your post. His morally bankrupt writings should prohibit him from using the title “ethicist” to describe himself.

    Summarizing: Singer’s concept of ethics boils down to “murder is OK, so long as the utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of one person against the preferences of another person comes out with the person with a higher “utilitarian” value staying alive.”

    Singer’s problem is that he can’t (or won’t) recognize the potential for growth into a sentient being from what he considers a non-sentient being as being morally superior to a non-sentient or semi-sentient being which cannot change.

What I love about these “occupations” that demand freedom and anarchy, is that they have established strict rules against alcohol and drugs and sex so that the police don’t have reason to crack down on them. Which means that the anarchists have established laws, a police force and ways of expelling nonconforming members. All by themselves, and in just a few days. Give them time, and maybe they’ll invent the concepts of Republic and Democracy. Think of it as an interesting social-studies experiment.

    Weeeeeellll, I wouldn’t say “strict” rules. There’s a lot of sex and drugs going on. They can’t stop themselves. Discipline isn’t exactly their bailiwick.

    Weirddave in reply to radiofreeca. | October 10, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    I don’t think they’re capable intellectually of moving beyond oligarchy. If they have an underlying political philosophy, it’s Rousseau’s, not Locke’s. Ask the French how well that works. Same old crap, different century.

“But if you go carrying pictures of sex with cows …

… you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”

LukeHandCool (who can just picture an Occupy the Zoos offshoot … hey little koala … “don’t you know it’s gonna be … all right?”)

I was thinking along the lines of El Cid. Now they’ve “humped the shark.” 🙂

[…] Professor Jacobson: “Jump the shark” doesn’t begin to describe this sequence of responsive chanting (I think they call it human microphone or whatever). […]

Hubby played me some from Beck showing the crowd mindlessly repeating what the speaker was saying to include the “thank you all for coming and thank so-and-so and the such-and-such group for inviting me” part.

[…] a National Museum in Washington DC, trespass past curfew a state capitol complex in Des Moines IA, chant for insane sex acts in Atlanta GA, hold a rally for a terrorist suspect in Boston MA or block lanes designated for […]

This bizarre groupspeak is the scariest thing I have ever seen, I think. We have crossed into some alternate universe. This is NOT the country I grew up in.

What’s next?

[…] video here: via Legal Insurrection and the Conservatory.  It would be a very, very cruel thing if people started infiltrating these […]

[…] video here: via Legal Insurrection and the Conservatory.  It would be a very, very cruel thing if people started infiltrating these […]

[…] video here: via Legal Insurrection and the Conservatory.  It would be a very, very cruel thing if people started infiltrating these […]

I think he said “Blessed are the cheese-makers.”

What does PITA have to say about non-consensual sex with animals?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend