>‘Sister Ray’ is a seventeen-minute jam on one chord, and if Piero Scaruffi seriously thinks that it’s the greatest thing the Velvet Underground ever did as opposed to a juvenile art gesture, he’s got a tin fucking ear.
why does he like circus music so much
>>62433165
agreed
>>62433165
/mu/ is too busy sucking on his ding dong.
>>62433217
because he's a clown
All these prelude to Sister Ray, a deafening black mass, an incantation of voices and instruments in a trance, perhaps the greatest masterpiece in all of rock music. This epic snake slithers for seventeen minutes without a moment's pause, with a throbbing beat (Maureen Tucker has every the right to list herself among the best drummers in rock history), with distorted and hissing guitar phrasing comprised of vehement assaults and soft whispers in counterpoint, with the continuous electric martyrdom of Cale, and with the acutely spirited voice of a stuttering Reed, epileptic and possessed. The tremendous accelerating beat and the spasms of emotional neurosis that shatter it from top to bottom reach sound levels and emotional intensity never before accomplished in music. The snake unfolds like a long sabbath, a ritualistic dance, a happening of collective self-destruction in a continuous eruption of gasps, psychopathic spasms, perverse violence, and obsessive delirium - a pulsating heap of sounds that explode in every direction, a dissonant hurricane of such violence as to uproot the entire civilization of music, a dramatic jubilation of enraged anguish, a mystical anarchic liberation of primordial instincts, a psychoanalytic session of automatic writing, an expansion of consciousness, an ode to the chaos of the metropolis, an anthem to universal insanity.
but it's the jam of a lifetime
He likes little girls
Therefore, his opinion doesn't matter
Cased Closed
Whom are you quoting?
>>62433246
underrated post
>an epic piece that rivals beethoven's symphonies
lmao
i love sister ray but in no way is it comparable to beethoven
>>62433268
>Cased Closed
I don't want to play doubles advocate but scaruffi doesn't actually like (as in fancy) little girls
who gives a shit what this homophobic pedophile thinks?
>>62433261
there's nothing really wrong with this other than the declarations of "greatest" (referring to both the album and Mo's drumming)
>>62433165
I don't like scaruffi either, but calling Sister Ray a juvenile art gesture makes you a pleb.
Sure seems like a progression of three chords to me
>>62433313
what did scaruffi say that was homophobic? didn't he just think socializing healthcare should be prioritized higher than gay marriage? who wouldn't agree with that?
>>62433305
He may or may not like little girls but that doesn't change the fact that he wrote an article that advocated for child marriages while simultaneously arguing against homosexuality. That's retard-tier bigotry and pedophile apologia.
>>62433388
>pedophile apologia
>bigotry
Oh boy here we go
SHES BUSY SUCKING ON MY DING DONG
WHY ARE THERE AGE LIMITS?
WHY CAN'T I MARRY A 12-YEAR-OLD?
>>62433385
He said that if gay people are allowed to get married we should also allow child marriages and polygamy. He even argues that both of these marriage types are more "natural" because they're historically prevalent (he uses fucking Islam as an example for child marriages). He also says that he's worried about children being "brainwashed' by gay "propaganda." It's very classic homosexuality leads to other forms of "degeneracy/" it's not "natural" kind of fallacies.
Also, why would one issue (healthcare) somehow cancel out giving another group basic fundamental human rights? Regardless of how important healthcare is, that's a pretty stupid argument. That's like saying you don't believe black people should have the right to own property because global warming is a more pressing issue. It feels like you're being intentionally dense here.
>>62433461
>being anti-gay isn't bigoted
>advocating for Islamic child marriages is morally acceptable
>>>/pol/
who /oyvey/ here
>all these plebs who can't handle scaruffi's impeccable taste so they attack his political views
i don't even agree with his views on gay marriage (though i find his views agreeable otherwise) but fuck off with that bullshit
>mfw yummy yummy preteen cunny
>>62433468
I COULDNT HIT IT SIDE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYSSS
>>62433704
Show your source for the article then, I can say that Kanye West actually did like those fingers in his ass but that was word of mouth.
Post your source, you dumb nigger.
>>62433833
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108cvvvvvvv
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gays.html
>>62433768
I wonder who he would pick from here, might e-mail him about it actually
But there's more than one chord in that song...
>>62433165
>a juvenile art gesture
lol i wish kids would do stuff like that tbhh
>>62433881
>http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gays.html
Yeah, I don't think these qualify as being a homophobic person or bigoted.
>mfw this is probably some 400 lb landwhale from tumblr
>>62433704
>saying Islam is immoral
>calling other people bigots
k
>>62433625
Don't forget when shown studies that kids with gay parents grow up as normal as other kids, he said that those studies are faked and is gay propaganda.
>>62433881
These articles aren't anti-gay you tit
>>62433246
Damn...
>>62433388
No he didn't, did you even read the article?
It's called Minimalism Genius
>>62434298
>minimalist=good
wew
sister ray is the only song I have ever masturbated to.
>>62434298
Minimalism usually has some kind of musical development, it's not just droning on one chord for 17 minutes
>>62433989
read the first article dingus
yelling tumblr anytime someone says something you don't agree with is not a valid argument
he argues that child marriage, polygamy and incest are more deserving of marital rights than gay marriage using both an appeal to nature and an appeal to tradition, completely ignoring why each of those practices present serious moral and ethical problems. he never seems to explain why, even if his ramblings were true and 12 year old girls should be married off, gay marriage should be outlawed. it's like saying interracial marriage should be outlawed because homosexual marriage is.
then he argues that any pro gay marriage is trying to convert kids into homosexuals. it's the same shit you hear from fox news. my god, they're trying to turn our kids gay!!!
>>62434095
are you arguing that the islamic practice of child marriage is moral? I know this is bait but come on.
>>62434130
link?
>>62434172
I bet you're the kind of guy that says "I'm not homophobic but gays shouldn't get married and they're degenerates!"
>>62434529
Boy, it must be hard to keep up with your tumblr blog when you spend all of your time shitposting here.
>>62434260
Yes I did. He sure spends a lot of time listing
the pros for child marriage and pedophilia:
>Why are there age limits?
He asks
>Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws.
(appeal to tradition)
>Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth)
Misleading in that 15 year olds are not mentally developed to deal with marriage and pregnancy
>And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology
Does he have a source for this?
>In countless countries of the world women have their first child at a very young age, and stop having children at a relatively young age.
Yes, like Islamic states where young girls are sold as property
>Note that all of these forms of marriage were common in ancient times before the introduction of Christian "morality"
More appeals to tradition
>Therefore one could find stronger arguments in favor of these forms of marriage than in favor of homosexual marriage
He literally says that there is more logic behind child marriages than gay marriage.
>>62434626
epic
>>62434529
>are you arguing that the islamic practice of child marriage is moral? I know this is bait but come on.
No
I'm calling you a hypocrite
And no it wasnt bait
>>62434772
So they're better than? I don't get why you're arguing for an abstract way of life compared to one that he's reasoning with, he has a pretty compelling argument honestly.
>>62434836
Do you have any actual logic behind calling me a hypocrite or did you see the words Islam and immediately turn into defense mode?
Could you elaborate, or better yet answer the question I just asked? If you disagree with the idea of child marriages you must, by your definition, be a bigot as well.
>>62434854
This is some top tier goal post moving right here.
>>62434854
What exactly is compelling about "child marriage used to be legal and it's legal in Pakistan therefore it is more favourable than gay marriage?"
Honest question.
Do we take into account historical homosexuality in certain cultures or are we only picking and choosing ones that help Scaruffi's argument? And are we also ignoring the fact that homosexuality has been outlawed for that same Christian "morality" Scaruffi seems annoyed with in regards to child marriages.
>>62434772
This isn't "advocating child marriage" nor "arguing against homosexuality".
>>62435144
>Christian "morality"
lmao
Thanks for making my point for me anon *tips muh dora*
>>62435144
what society had legal gay marriages?
I know the greeks sometimes practiced it as a temporary thing been a mentor and student, but even they would think it's unnatural for a man to only like other men and not women
>>62435171
>article is called "why I voted against gay marriage"
>is not "arguing against homosexuality"
Do you also believe Christian "family values" organizations are not anti-gay?
>>62435319
Literally an exact quotation right from the fucking Scaruffi article you dunce.
>>62435365
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
>>62435626
Arguing against gay marriage isn't arguing against being gay you faggot
>>62435626
The vast majority of those were informal unions (often between older men and teens, something you're against), not at all considered equal to legal marriages
>>62435734
>arguing against interracial marriage isn't racist!!!
>I'm against interracial relationships because the media is trying to brainwash kids into dating niggers, but I'm not racist guys!!!
That's pretty much how stupid you sound.
Arguing against the rights of a minority group, comparing homosexuality unfavorably to incest and pedophilia and expressing your fear that they're trying to "brainwash" kids into being "gay" is some Fox news shit.
You're a grade A retard if you don't think Scaruffi is a homophobe.
>>62433246
damn......
>>62435986
Lol not the same thing
>>62433165
I like Scaruffi but he overrated the fuck out of Sister Ray (and Twin Infinitives too)
>>62435983
Look, you tried to narrow down my original statement ("historical homosexuality") and asked me for something very specific "legal gay marriages." I provided examples for you, but really I shouldn't have taken you bait because I've been arguing that looking to history for moral or legal advice is a terrible idea and fallacious in nature (appeal to tradition.) That's the basis of Scaruffi's argument for adult-child relationships and against homosexual relationships. My point is that even if we're to accept his shitty logic, he purposefully ignores societies that accepted homosexuality and he purposefully ignores that Christian morals are the prevailing force in arguments against homosexuality.
>>62436106
how so?
lol
>>62436628
Marriages between various races perform the exact same function, they are indistinguishable other than on a visual level
A same sex marriage is fundamentally different than a traditional marriage. Men and women have lots of different traits that go beyond physical differences. Not to mention the aspect of procreation.
if u post in this thread and disagree with me, you're been cheated on
>>62435986
>>62437082
It still wouldn't be racist anyway. You need to learn what terms actually mean instead of just spouting "bigot! racist!" like a mindless tumblr SJW.
>>62437272
Why did you quote me?
>>62437385
cuz you're been cheated on
>>62437082
>Men and women have lots of different traits that go beyond physical differences.
In what way are these physical differences implemented into marriage law and why would they present a hurdle to same sex marriage?
>Not to mention the aspect of procreation.
Should infertile women and couples who wish not to have children have the same marital rights as couples who can and plan to have children? Should different sex adoptive parents have different rights than same sex adoptive parents? What is the difference between a lesbian couple that utilizes artificial insemination and a heterosexual couple that does the same because of some sort of physical limitation?
>>62437272
Again, please elaborate why taking an active stance to remove rights from interracial couples is not racist. Try your hardest to do it without shouting tumblr.
>>62434529
Morality is relative, m8
>>62437630
>Again, please elaborate why taking an active stance to remove rights from interracial couples is not racist.
racism
noun rac·ism \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
Now you explain how arguing against interracial marriage is racist.
>>62433246
What a clon...
#redpillarmy
>>62437897
relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.
>listen to WL/WH
>realize how shitty even Lou Reeds vocals are compared to Cale
what did this talentless hack even contribute?
>>62438042
Very easy. I'll assume you're not a complete retard and you understand that the historical significance of interracial marriage in western civilization had to do with segregation and race mixing and was/is primarily advocated by white people.
>1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Is implied in the concept that racial mixing is inherently negative and that introducing negative traits from black people (inferior beings) will poison white bloodlines. It's no shock that most advocates today are neo-Nazi's who believe in "preserving" the Aryan race and see racial "breeding" as degradation.
But even if you're going to be completely dense and argue some bullshit about pride, which I expect you do next, the second definition is much easier to deal with:
>2: racial prejudice or discrimination
Err, how about removing marital rights from races who wish to express their love with other races. It is inherently discriminatory to tell black people they can't marry white people and believe it or not that is a racial distinction.
And to make matters worse, Scaruffi isn't just openly advocating against gay marriage, he VOTED to remove those rights from people. It's one thing to say that you don't want to have a gay/interracial relationship. It's another to lobby to have those rights removed from other human beings whose lives do not effect you.
So please, tell me in what world this isn't racist.
>>62433165
Who the fuck are you quoting?
>>62438151
A "scoundrel" that's characterised by your understanding of morality.
>>62438709
No, I asked you to explain why condoning interracial marriage is inherently racist, not why a large group of proponents of that ideology are racist.
>Err, how about removing marital rights from races who wish to express their love with other races. It is inherently discriminatory to tell black people they can't marry white people and believe it or not that is a racial distinction.
Except all races would have their rights removed equally you absolute moron.
>>62438918
This is frequently adopted by those impatient with the burden of sceptical argument, for it seems to cut through the whole dispute, leaving the individual sovereign over his little opinions. It tells us that there is no such thing as objective truth, since all truth is ‘relative’. In argument about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel. ‘That is your opinion’ says the relativist, ‘and you are welcome to it. But it is not my opinion, and I am welcome to mine.’ No opinion has authority apart from the point of view which adopts it. I have as much right to believe that adultery is right as you have to believe that it is wrong. Neither right nor wrong exist, apart from the opinions which we entertain about them……As Plato shows, however, the objectivity of our beliefs is not jeopardised, if relativism is true only for the relativist. Moreover in asserting that relativism is true for him, the relativist asserts that it is true for him absolutely. He is committed to absolute truth by the very practice of assertion, which has absolute truth as its goal. In short relativism teaches amorality and the true value of nothing. It is the creed of scoundrels and thugs, especially when these, knowing full well that it is a false doctrine nevertheless utilise it to further their own political ends.
>>62439351
lmao nerd
>>62433246
rekt
>>62439778
I am going to fucking kill you
I've already bought a plane ticket, you have three days left
>>62439351
That's just your opinion, m8 :^)
>>62439163
Why would "condoning interracial marriage" be inherently racist? That goes completely against everything I've said. I'm going to assume you meant opposing interracial marriage.
And ignoring the motivations for opposing interracial marriage is dishonest at best. You've yet to provide a single reason why anyone would oppose interracial marriage that isn't rooted in some form of racial prejudice. It's dissecting an argument to a ridiculous and semantic extreme and it's sort of like arguing genocide isn't "inherently discriminatory against an ethnic group" and demanding an explanation that doesn't involve the motivations of said proponents of genocide.
So please, point to one single proponent for the opposition of interracial marriage that does not somehow involve racial purification. This should be extremely easy to do considering your argument that it's not inherently based in prejudice.
>Except all races would have their rights removed equally you absolute moron.
First of all, bullshit. That's like saying segregation of race in school is "equally racist" ignoring the fact that this will most certainly put blacks into rougher areas with worse schools and shitty education while whites reap the benefits of their social and economical advantages.
Secondly, it's irrelevant. Racial prejudice is racial prejudice whether it effects one race or every race.
>>62433305
>doubles advocate
what?
>>62439778
Aaron who is your cunnyfu? >>62433889
>>62440232
I didn't even read your post
>>62439778
>>62440232
terrible b8 0/10
>>62440252
Let's play Spot the Newfag!
>>62439778
>Homosexuality is disgusting and contrary to the way God designed humans to enjoy sexual relations
tell that to gay penguins
>>62440374
lel
>>62433246
Can we get back on-topic please?
Why does /pol/ always flock to Scaruffi threads?
>>62441331
Why can't I marry a twelve year old?
>>62441872
It's against the law you pedophile!
why is scaruffi so cute bros?
>>62439778
Just pull the trigger Aaron, you know you want to.
>>62440427
and how is he going to talk to a penguin you idiot
>>62433989
>i would be much unhappier if my underage daughter or sister had sex with a teenage junkie than with a mature, responsible, clean and honest 30-year old man, or with a 70-year old Nobel Prize winner
>>62442000
I dare you to split these guys apart. They're in love and they have a baby penguin together.
>>62441899
(not true, by the way)
>>62442055
>I live in a world where 10 year old girls either date 10 year old junkies or 70 year old nobel prize winners
>>62433364
This, seriously. I wish people would listen to music less passively before forming strong opinions.
>>62434772
>appeal to tradition
You miss the point, which is that certain people would cite historical homosexuality as a reason for it being acceptable/natural, whilst not realising how that argument can also be applied to paedophilia
>Misleading in that 15 year olds are not mentally developed to deal with marriage and pregnancy
Do you have any sources regarding this assertion? I would be interested to see them
>More appeals to tradition
Same as the first point
>He literally says that there is more logic behind child marriages than gay marriage.
According to the flawed logic which some promoters of gay rights use.
I think gay rights should be extended until there is complete legal and social parity between straight and gay couples. I also think people fucking children/pubescents willy nilly is almost certainly a terrible idea. Nonetheless, I think you're not taking all of what he's saying in the way he intends here.
>>62433889
Cara Jr is my cunnyfu
>>62443442
Who cites historical homosexuality and where does he make this distinction in his essay? Even if his goal is simply to argue that the same could be said of pedophilia, why is he using this as an argument AGAINST homosexuality? It's a false equivalence. People don't object/support pedophilia for historical reasons but rather the moral implications (and nor do I belief gay rights activists put much, if any weight on historical views on homosexuality, it's only ever used as a rebuttal to the flawed idea that since Juedo-Christian societies have historically outlawed homosexuality, it's "wrong," ... and using that as a springboard to compare homosexuality to pedophilia (as you suggest Scaruffi is doing here) is confusing since it serves to destroy the argument that anti-gay people initially made, i.e. tradition is not a good moral arbitrator). You can reinterpret Scaruffi's essay all you'd like, but it's quite clear he's taken an anti-gay stance. It says it right in the title of the essay and he clearly does not believe in social or legal parity between gay and straight couples. So I'm not sure why you're arguing in his favour if you're not a homophobe yourself.
>Do you have any sources regarding this assertion? I would be interested to see them
Honestly, I've been in this thread way too long to give you citations. At this point, if I need to give you information to convince you that child brides are a bad thing, we're probably not going to see eye to eye, cause that's really what Scaruffi is talking about in that paragraph. He's merely using the ages 15-25 of fertility to support child brides. If you've met a 15 year old in your life (a few years off from Scaruffi's initial plea for 12 year olds)... (cont next post)
>>62443442
>>62444330
I'd like you to seriously ask yourself if you think that person is mentally or financially equipped to raise a child and how comfortable you are with the idea of parents selling off their 15 year old daughters to old men to become subservient of their husbands, which is exactly what happens with child marriage.
And that's it. I'm done with this thread. Too many edgy pedophiles in here.
>>62433246
savage
>>62437897
>naive relativism
everytime
>>62444330
>>62444371
15 year olds today are little shits because people like you treat them like children
It wasn't always like that, people used to have more adult responsibilities at lower ages so they matured faster
I personally think 12 is too low but 15 or 16 is reasonable
>>62445998
mods please ban this deranged rapist or at least make him check his privilege
>>62445938
It's literally a fact that morality is relative.
>>62446380
Are you trying to say it isn't?
>>62446549
I am incapable of saying anything, as I am a spectator in the society of spectacle
>>62434456
Yes, Sister Ray is just one chord. There's zero improvisation over it at all.
Where were you when God was handing out eardrums you deaf cunt?
>>62446367
how relative?
>>62446582
I'll give you permission to acknowledge facts.
>>62446617
How exactly do you expect me to measure relativism?
>>62433165
sister ray is objectively their best song AND objectively the best rock song ever recorded
>>62446367
Moral relativism has been proven to be bullshit hundreds of times over. They teach you that during the first week of any ethics course.
>>62446799
>99
nice
>>62446799
>ethics course
My sides
>>62446851
Okay
Go ahead and explain to me how morality is relative.
too biddy suckign on myy bing bong :DDDD
>>62446905
>what are different cultures
>>62446905
not him, but it's a fact that different people follow different moral codes. Morality is a vague term; it's not monopolized by any one ideology. So you have to respect that one person's idea of it is different from another's
>>62446905
Killing an unborn baby is wrong. But what if it threatens the life of the mother?
There we go, a scenario where the moral choice is debatable. Fuck your stupid ethics course you retarded piece of shit.
>>62446987
all stupid and gay
>>62447009
Damn...
>>62433889
The more you scroll down, the more they all blen and look the same. I'd say Ashleigh or Rowan.
>>62446993
Ouch. You're even a bigger idiot than the other guy. Go ahead...You're right.
>>62446989
No. People follow different normative standards. Morality is objective, not relative. Also, what if I belong to two separate cultures with contradicting moral codes? What then? Which one am I coded to follow?
>>62447515
The one you feel is right
>>62447515
>Morality is objective, not relative.
>Also, what if I belong to two separate cultures with contradicting moral codes? Which one am I coded to follow?
You literally just said morality is objective and then went on to prove that it's subjective.
>>62433889
where is jojo?
>>62447691
If you think morality is subjective you're essentially saying that morality doesn't exist at all.
If morality is subjective, what's stopping me from breaking into your home and raping your sister, then claiming that murder is morally acceptable to me, or a culture that I come from? Should I still be punished? Do people really work that way?
>>62433246
WHAT A CLON
>>62448020
Morals are subjective
Laws arent
If you want to rape and kill teen girls, go move to cannibal island dumb fuck
Otherwise enjoy your stay in fed pen
>>62433246
damn...
>>62448020
Nothing's stopping you. You just realise that the consequences will be severe and decide that it's not worth it.
>>62448134
Right, but how were those consequences laid out? Surely rape and murder have been punishable in every culture, certainly when it's unjustifiable. So wouldn't that be something that cultures have in common? an underlying agreement that rape and murder are morally wrong? Wouldn't those cultures go extinct if the act of murder was morally permissible and practiced?
>>62433889
>cunny godmother
kek
>>62448134
And also if no law existed within a culture what's stopping each individual within that culture from carrying out those acts and claiming that it's morally justifiable to them? That doesn't happen. People have common, universal beliefs.
>>62448283
They came about because people generally don't like to be raped and murdered. That doesn't mean they don't want to rape and murder other people.
>i would be much unhappier if my underage daughter or sister had sex with a teenage junkie than with a mature, responsible, clean and honest 30-year old man, or with a 70-year old Nobel Prize winner
lmao
>>62448459
Right... We call those people immoral.
>>62448625
If morality is objective, how can immorality exist?
>>62448283
>>62448410
This is all humans morality, from a human standpoint - it's this way because people don't like those things. There is in no way a universal, all-encompassing factual morality. This isn't hard to realize.
>>62448685
The two are intertwined. By stating something is objectively moral you're condemning another action as immoral. I don't see your point. Universal immorality is dependent on what we believe to be universally moral.
>>62448835
>Universal immorality is dependent on what we believe to be universally moral.
>what we believe
>>62448835
But if morality is objective, everyone would have the same understanding of good and evil. The point is that we don't, therefore morality is subjective.
>>62448902
Watch this video if you want to. I can't stick around anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmTRycl_-LE
>>62449058
Considering you've most likely watched the video and have yet to cite a convincing argument from it, I think i'll pass.
>>62434427
Hey nice, I think I may tonight
>>62433165
Can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet.
Lou Reed said "One chord is fine. Two chords is pushing it. Three chords and you're into jazz."
The band was never about chord changes, they were about atmosphere and sound. The one chord song was always Velvet Underground's ideal, and Sister Ray clearly fits what they stood for more than any other song. Do you even La Monte Young? The Velvets sure did.
