PDA

View Full Version : How to bring shame upon Oprah - "stolen human flesh"


TLCTugger
January 8th, 2010, 09:15
I am absolutely boiling.

Oprah just started here and I hear her announce the topics. She wants us to be outraged by a story of "stolen human flesh" about taking body parts of the deceased.

This from the lady smearing TNS Recovery Complex by SkinMedica on her face (made from infant foreskin taken from LIVING victims) to fight wrinkles.

I think if we can get somebody's attention on this it could make a nice news item. She must be shamed.

Who can get to Chicago to protest in front of her studio one day? Got a better idea?

The digital program guide gives the show topic as "Ultimate Betrayal" (about cheating husbands).

Joseph
January 8th, 2010, 09:34
Sucks I'm not in the states right now, and even if I were, I don't live even remotely close to the area (California guy).

You should post this on Facebook as a status and in groups etc...

This DOES fucking piss me off...

Absolute hypocrisy.

tony12345
January 8th, 2010, 14:26
Ron, I'll PM you.

z726
January 8th, 2010, 14:57
That's only part of it. Not only was the guy cheating on his wife and selling body parts from deceased bodies, he and his associates "knowingly sold tissue and bones infected with hepatitis, HIV and cancer to transplant patients, putting thousands of people at risk." But it's Oprah, so the story focuses more on the husband cheating on wife part.

http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahshow/20091015-tows-ultimate-betrayal/4

WoundedBird
August 30th, 2010, 07:53
Oprah doesn't care about men. She is a narcissist, a hypocrite, and a bitch. I never liked her, but I only started hating her when I learned about her foreskin wrinkle cream. How dare she.

Distalero
August 30th, 2010, 10:17
Just going down the forums and I find this. Jeeze.

Before you guys end up wearing tinfoil hats during meetings in dark basements, consider this:

1. Yes, the tenor of the article is whining and superficial, but when the article under question deals with the extreme outrageousness of selling diseased human tissue to unsuspecting tissue recipients, shouldn't we be outraged at that act? Shouldn't we take each issue as it stands, rather than conveniently using one to color another? (and where, z726, does that second article say anything about the asshole cheating on his wife; it says he lied to her and everyone else, and F'd over her father) Where's the problem there. Oh yeah...........

2. Oprah has promoted the use of a commercial product that includes cells from human foreskin. This sucks, no argument. It's a prime example of an essentially frivolous end product of the human tissue-for-money chain that starts with asshole OB/GYNs in facilities being paid for RIC, and the facilities being paid, for that tissue. Promotion of a particular product, however, doesn't take away the outrageousness of what was done by all larcenous assholes who pop up in the chain. It just shows her ignorance. People are ignorant of many things. Here's one...

3. This same "larcenous chain" includes those research projects and their supporters who use tissue from human foreskin as an integral part in the ongoing stem cell research that is so naively, and in basic ignorance of the process, promoted by so many elsewhere on this forum. Oh-oh, now what do we do. Ironic, no? I'm hoping you'all are saying "yes" because it bloody well is.

Here's the thing, folks. Ain't nothin simple; the human world is murky, impure, with ignorance, greed, and hate begetting more of the same. The decent into lynch mob mentality arises from stroking personal bias, as does larceny, from practices like RIC. Where does it stop?

Maybe with you and me doing a little more critical thinking, not to mention acknowledging more than one aspect of the murkiness, and doing less knee jerking, or whatever else is being jerked, during discussion?

admin
August 30th, 2010, 12:54
Just going down the forums and I find this. Jeeze.

Before you guys end up wearing tinfoil hats during meetings in dark basements, consider this:

1. Yes, the tenor of the article is whining and superficial, but when the article under question deals with the extreme outrageousness of selling diseased human tissue to unsuspecting tissue recipients, shouldn't we be outraged at that act? Shouldn't we take each issue as it stands, rather than conveniently using one to color another? (and where, z726, does that second article say anything about the asshole cheating on his wife; it says he lied to her and everyone else, and F'd over her father) Where's the problem there. Oh yeah...........

2. Oprah has promoted the use of a commercial product that includes cells from human foreskin. This sucks, no argument. It's a prime example of an essentially frivolous end product of the human tissue-for-money chain that starts with asshole OB/GYNs in facilities being paid for RIC, and the facilities being paid, for that tissue. Promotion of a particular product, however, doesn't take away the outrageousness of what was done by all larcenous assholes who pop up in the chain. It just shows her ignorance. People are ignorant of many things. Here's one...

3. This same "larcenous chain" includes those research projects and their supporters who use tissue from human foreskin as an integral part in the ongoing stem cell research that is so naively, and in basic ignorance of the process, promoted by so many elsewhere on this forum. Oh-oh, now what do we do. Ironic, no? I'm hoping you'all are saying "yes" because it bloody well is.

Here's the thing, folks. Ain't nothin simple; the human world is murky, impure, with ignorance, greed, and hate begetting more of the same. The decent into lynch mob mentality arises from stroking personal bias, as does larceny, from practices like RIC. Where does it stop?

Maybe with you and me doing a little more critical thinking, not to mention acknowledging more than one aspect of the murkiness, and doing less knee jerking, or whatever else is being jerked, during discussion?

I have no idea what you're warning us against.

Oprah is outraged by mistreatment of dead people. She gives less than two shits for living male infants. She's a hypocrite. She has a huge name.

These facts indicate that a lot of publicity about leaving infants intact could be garnered if we had the first fucking clue where to start. I'd be happy just protesting with signs outside her studio.

I have no idea what you're warning us against.

-Ron

pi314
August 30th, 2010, 16:36
Maybe Oprah just wants cock all over her face :D

Sorry - trying to make fun of her, not the deed.

Distalero
August 30th, 2010, 18:19
I have no idea what you're warning us against.

Oprah is outraged by mistreatment of dead people. She gives less than two shits for living male infants. She's a hypocrit. She has a huge name.

These facts indicate that a lot of publicity about leaving infants intact could be garnered if we had the first fucking clue where to start. I'd be happy just protesting with signs outside her studio.

I have no idea what you're warning us against.

-Ron

Uh, maybe posting without my coffee first? :)

My primary point is that Oprah isn't the antichrist, although she has about as much money. She's just ignorant for promoting a skin product formulated from foreskin presumably which came from RIC, and, she's dead on right for castigating some idiot who defrauded people by selling diseased tissue. As described, she isn't for dead people, she for the living people who were horribly ripped off.

Her castigating this criminal isn't hypocritical, it doesn't make her a hypocrite, because she is, or was, ignorant of the dark practice of RIC, yet that's what you guys are saying. You guys got all frothy over the article, with no reason for it (my point that it was whining and superficial was really the only thing you can say about it).

My other point is that the use of harvested human foreskin is an integral part of, among other things, stem cell research, which is strongly promoted in several ways here on this forum, and otherwise used as the centerfold to jerk off to by the "dreamers", let's say, who come on this forum and make sweeping statements about this research, despite knowing nothing about it actually. So: murky, dark, imperfect process which in some regard is done TO infants, yet somehow those folks here who promote stem cell research either avoid mentioning, or are just plain ignorant of the involvement of RIC in this issue.

I certainly don't have any respect for her past promotion of the skin product, and I don't have any respect for her flavor-of-the-week, superficial treatment of a multitude of issues (ask any clinician about Dr Phil, for instance, see what they say); after all, she's putting on a show, a TV show, but on the other hand I don't try to paint her as the antichrist, either, and jump on everything she says, while trying to tie it back in to the RIC issue. That's "stroking the bias", as I described it. You can't say that "she doesn't give two shits for living male infants" until you've actually supported that with her specific statements and perhaps actions to that effect, and so far you haven't gotten there. Until you do, she remains just another schmuck, not someone who would walk over male infants (so tell that guy in the back to stop playing with the noose).

So how do you protest effectively? I suppose you go back to the actual transgressors and protest outside their places of business. Stand out front of Oprah's studio? Why? Why waste your time with the essentially removed hucksters and showmen; everybody knows they're full of shit.

Shientienchi
August 30th, 2010, 18:31
Misandry (pronounced /mɪˈsændri/) is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys.

This word and definition fit Opal(yes I meant to say that, just watch madtv on youtube) to a freaking T.

z726
August 30th, 2010, 19:15
Huh, I guess when I posted that back in January I had misread the synopsis and lumped guy #1 in with guy #2. Mistakes like that tend to happen when I'm skimming some text on the internet I don't really care about.

And don't discount the possibility of Oprah being the antichrist. It's always who you'd least expect.

Dasher
August 30th, 2010, 19:38
Isn't it an established fact that Oprah is directly or indirectly promoting RIC by creating a huge (and successful) new market for the foreskins of baby boys?

Isn't it true that billionaire Oprah belongs to formal or informal groups promoting male circumcision in Africa, together with pals like Bill and Melinda Gates?

Isn't it true that Oprah is totally against FGM, but hasn't muttered even a peep about the equal injustice of MGM?

My prediction: in whatever time remains for her daily show, she won't be dedicating a single minute to the injustice of MGM. And that's a promise.

PS: If baby boys can be tortured by RIC, it's probably just fine with Oprah. She probably couldn't care less. Because, with her, only females count.

admin
August 30th, 2010, 21:55
You can't say that "{Oprah} doesn't give two shits for living male infants" until you've actually supported that with her specific statements and perhaps actions to that effect, and so far you haven't gotten there. Until you do, she remains just another schmuck

OK, I watched her show. I lady from Skin-Medica was on promoting TNS Recovery Complex. The lady said: "...and it's made from a little baby's foreskin." The audience tittered quite a while and then applauded.

Rewind that scene and plug in "clitoral hood" for "foreskin" and do you doubt for a second that the taping would have been immediately suspended and the police called?

Don't bother telling me who I can and can't call a hypocrite.

-Ron

admin
August 30th, 2010, 22:03
go back to the actual transgressors and protest outside their places of business. Stand out front of Oprah's studio? Why? Why waste your time with the essentially removed hucksters and showmen; everybody knows they're full of shit.

I don't place much stock in your judgement when it comes to getting publicity for a cause. I'm going to stand in a remote plot of an industrial park out in the sticks to hold a sign where 6 people who already know they're assholes can see it on their way in to work?

I'd much rather call several reporters and make a stand out in front of Harpo studios a few blocks from where the reporters work.

-Ron

Distalero
August 30th, 2010, 22:41
You're free to choose your place to literally stand in opposition; rock on. If you think that placards do much, then wave on. Will it affect anyone in her production company, when it's her name signing the checks?

I personally wouldn't waste my time with it, but then I'm the first to acknowledge that I've had the luxury, if you want to put it that way, of working inside the facility, more quietly doing what I can to fight the fight.

I've already commented on her promotion of the skin product. The people who listen to her and see her as an expert in... anything... most likely won't listen to opposition to her positions, not the least because she's become a strong saleswoman, but in this case for the product, not RIC. That aspect isn't discussed. Not by her, and not by.........

anyone in this discussion in relation to scientific research. Is scientific research (cue the lightning) BAD? You tell me. Helped a lot of suffering folks. Should the experimental research be cast out? That's where the help originally came from.

Not being able to see a distinct outline to the evil in this world makes it difficult to fight, no argument there, either. But I won't lower myself to simplify things to the point where I'm not looking at each issue, case by case, and making the mistake of using an unassociated article to prove an unassociated point. Just bad form.

I understand the issue of having to begin somewhere, but I also know the benefit of the larger view, perspective; only with that can something more like effective strategy happen.

Distalero
August 30th, 2010, 22:53
Huh, I guess when I posted that back in January I had misread the synopsis and lumped guy #1 in with guy #2. Mistakes like that tend to happen when I'm skimming some text on the internet I don't really care about.

And don't discount the possibility of Oprah being the antichrist. It's always who you'd least expect.

Well, using that logic then she's not the antichrist, 'cause she's expected to be by some on this forum :D

If I get a vote, then it might be the cute little orange cat which lives down the block, but comes over to sit on my breakfast table and beg for tasty bits. If it starts talking..............

admin
August 30th, 2010, 23:17
Is scientific research (cue the lightning) BAD? You tell me. Helped a lot of suffering folks. Should the experimental research be cast out? That's where the help originally came from.

Bro, we're not talking about alleviating suffering, we're talking about anti-wrinkle face creme made from foreskin. To be clear, foreskin isn't directly an ingredient. Rather the cells are cultured from a single donor's skin sample. But the product is derived from a research initiative that purchased infant foreskins by the 1000s, and the company continues the research on stolen foreskins.

There is absolutely no scientific research that can ethically exploit stolen body parts from non-consenting victims, no matter how many suffering folks are helped. Any such experimental research must be cast out and expunged from our society.

I ask only that the foreskin get the same respect as the clitoral hood. Oprah is not rubbing hood-derived creme on her face, nor is any burn treatment or disease therapy being derived from any part non-consentually amputated from living female victims.

-Ron