DNA Sculpture “Vile and Offensive”

The god idiots are at it again.

The large, plastic and metallic sculpture parked outside UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science, is stoking the angry fires of parents of children who attend nearby Claremont Park Elementary School.

“My daughter suggested that it was funny,” said John Copeland, whose 7-year-old daughter attends summer camp there. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”

The genetically correct structure is part of an ongoing exhibit titled “DNA Sculpture,” created by acclaimed artist Ashe Kutchya, which represents “genetic material from an enzyme,” according to Lawrence Hall of Science’s website.

It depicts a DNA double helix — two congruent helices with the same axis, differing by a translation along the axis. The structure is larger than life, and elongated. Its genetic analogy to human life is subtle.

…Copeland said he hopes the owner of the plaza removes the sculpture before school starts next month.

“There are 1000 kids in the school that are going to be exposed to it,” he said. “It’s vile and offensive, and kids have no business seeing what God thought fit to hide from our eyes.”

DNA? How is having a sculpture of DNA going to hurt the kiddies?
Besides, art is not supposed to be educational – it should be entertaining and provocative.
I say take down the DNA! Replace it with a giant erect cock plunging into a huge slippery pussy.
Hide some speakers inside it so it moans and grunts and says, “F**k me! Oh my GOD, I love it!”
Every hour the cock can shoot great ropey strands of marshmallow silly string and all the kids can gobble it up! And condoms for everyone!
Now THAT’S educational.

14 Responses

  1. “It’s vile and offensive, and kids have no business seeing what God thought fit to hide from our eyes.” This guy feels the microscope is the devil’s instrument?!? And the telescope? He’s probably opposed to the flashlight too. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

  2. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”

    I can picture this moron stammering in front of his 7-year-old, struggling to come up with a lie convincing enough to hold the him over until a later age. The muddled truth and desperation in this sentence reminds of the W Bush good ol’ days.

  3. He can tell his daughter what my parents told me back in the ’70s: “Well, honey, that’s how God made us. Look at your fingertips, your fingerprints swirl around too!”

    Dear Göttinhimmel…this is the 21st Century?!?
    Has Berkeley, CA become so open-minded that their brains have finally fallen out?

    • Not sure if you had or point or not. God didn’t make us.
      Apparently some in Berkeley, CA are brainless. I bet the ratio is better, but the left end of the curve is ever present.

  4. Parody.

    (but real article is still a display of stupidity)

    • Satire. But everything pretty much comes sugar coated, new, improved and obsolete on delivery.
      What’s a cynic to do?

  5. Keep praying, cousinavi, keep praying.

    One day, our dreams will all come true.

    Oh, wait, I’ve been drinking. Nevermind.

  6. “My daughter suggested that it was funny,” said John Copeland, whose 7-year-old daughter attends summer camp there. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”

    How about this Fucktardaddy?

    “It’s a sculpture, kid.”

    Fuck, that was easy. This explanation works because
    A) It is a sculpture.
    B) DNA looks like a sculpture anyway.

    But if you want to explain why the Bible says nothing about Genetics (which is, in fact, totally wrong as the Bible blathers on for pages and pages of” X begot Y and Y begot Z and Z begot…”) But to DNA specifically, here’s an equally easy response that doesn’t challenge your simple beliefs.

    “There’s nothing about it in the Bible because the Bible isn’t a science textbook. The Bible also says nothing about the make-up of the solar system. Nor does it discuss automobiles, jet planes, the spread of the Metric System or any other technological advance of the 20th Century because doing so would explode the heads of anyone reading it before 1900. Outside of Revelations, the Bible avoids any mention of the future…except that you’re going to Hell if you don’t eat your vegetables. Now eat up, kid!”

    If you read between the lines, (because this “problem” is so easily explainable without even contradicting the Bible) the guy is actually working on the premise that his religion is outdated, wrong, doesn’t stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny and is a source of embarrassment. He has no confidence in his own belief system. His solution is to not give up his beliefs, nor even moderate, alter or expand them in any way. His solution is to smash, burn, and ban so that all of society must be kept in a permanent state of ignorance to anything that doesn’t jive with his Holy Book, as if his Holy Book was meant to be some paper version of Wikipedia in the first place.

    Some people are just too stupid to be given access to sperm.

  7. THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. That’s considered an invalid method of inquiry, rationality, or debate.

    If you want to discuss whether nudity is bad or not, then focus on that. Although the naked body does not offend me, I can easily see why some people would be offended. For example the sight of DNA doesn’t make male penises become erect, or horny girls wet their panties. Someone who is against nudity could reasonably make that argument that DNA sculptures are okay, but not naked bodies, based upon the preceding point.

    Please refrain from using strawman arguments.

    The people who don’t want to see nudity are not mindless strawmen.

    • I presume you’re directing your comment at the imaginary people who object to the non-existent sculpture (the article upon which this post is based is satire) and not at me, the owner of VNV. Either that or you’re even dumber than the generous reading offers.

      Beyond that, you need a better understanding of what constitutes a straw man argument.
      What IF someone gets aroused by seeing the double-helix? Is nudity ok if it doesn’t cause arousal?
      You’re just blithering utter crap – nonsense – and tossing about terms you possess only a grasping awareness.

      People who don’t want to see nudity are repressed, ignorant prudes motivated by religious indoctrination most likely inflicted on them as a form of child abuse. For that matter, PEOPLE are NEVER “mindless straw men” – only scarecrows are.
      I’ve said before that if I were going to ban anyone from posting comments in my blog, it would be for stupidity but sadly that would rule out far too many to accord with even my restrictive notion of free speech. You, however, are pushing the boundaries with your weapons-grade imbecility. If you ever dump that level of brainless fuckwittery on my blog again, you’re ability to degrade the conversation will be revoked.

  8. Alex double-spammed my blog with his unsupported strawman rhetoric, as well.

    Your reply, cousinavi, is spot on, and resembles the one I gave him a short while ago, which I’ll replicate here for your amusement:

    I accept that it’s an imperfect analogy — we don’t see DNA. However, the argument stands on its own that there should be a rational reason behind perpetuating the taboo against nudity. You imply that it has to do with the desire not to get hard or wet, but you don’t take it to the next level of the argument to determine whether there is something harmful in getting hard or wet. As a matter of fact, you’re implying that there is something harmful with our natural sexual reactions, which is exactly what I’m targeting — the behaviorally induced “ick” factor that has no rational justification.

    Instead of attacking my argument based on what you see as a strawman, support your argument that sexuality ought to be allowed to be treated negatively, as taboo.

    • The stupid. They are out there, and they are legion.
      I’m for a revision to the criminal code which permits the forced sterilization of Alex, and his violent death should he object.
      No one that stupid should be allowed to reproduce…or adopt, come to think of it. Nature v. Nurture? Let’s not take any chances, eh?

  9. This is as fucking idiotic as anything I’ve heard about the conflict between science and religion. This man who has to explain a strand of DNA to his dughter is just a fucking ignorant tool. Period.

  10. “These days, there is no room for ambiguity, and few rewards for critical thinking. Now every word of a politician is pumped dry by his opponent, looking for sinister meanings. Many political ads are an insult to the intelligence. Here I am not discussing politics. I am discussing credulity. If you were to see a TV ad charging that a politician supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergarten children, would you (1) believe it, or (2) very much doubt it? The authors of the ad spent big money in a bet on the credulity and unquestioning thinking of the viewership. Ask yourself what such an ad believes about us.”
    – Roger Ebert regarding an ill received creationist satire

    He also mentions how The Intenets accentuate this trend.

    With sheer the level of ignorance out there, the level of uncritical press coverage the ignorance gets and how The Powers That Be use and count on the ignorance and our instant reactions in an age of instant (and unthinking reflexive) reactions, satire must be labelled more clearly than porn.

    Even the smartest can occasionally be rendered stupid in today’s culture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: