Monday, May 25, 2015

Attempted Refutation of the Difficulty in Producing First Life

I've been looking at the various calculations regarding the random assembly of DNA, RNA, RNA-polymerase, and the necessary proteins and their component amino acids, in the context of first life emerging by abiogenesis. And I stumbled across the following "refutation" of the presumed difficulty due to the emergent self-assembly of RNA found in the Bartel/Zostak experiment:
"Now I will recall a classic experiment by David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published in Science in 1993. Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences. Nucleotides, by the way, are monomers of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, just as amino acids are the monomers, or subunits, of proteins, and making random sequences is easy to do with modern methods of molecular biology.

They reasoned that buried in those trillions were a few catalytic RNA molecules called ribozymes that happened to catalyze a ligation reaction, in which one strand of RNA is linked to a second strand. The RNA strands to be ligated were attached to small beads on a column, then were exposed to the trillions of random sequences simply by flushing them through the column. This process could fish out any RNA molecules that happened to have even a weak ability to catalyze the reaction. They then amplified those molecules and put them back in for a second round, repeating the process for 10 rounds. By the way, this is the same basic logic that breeders use when they select for a property such as coat color in dogs.

The results were amazing. After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.

Bartel and Szostak’s results have been repeated and extended by other researchers, and they demonstrate a fundamental principle of evolution at the molecular level. At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules. But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically.

In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function. In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals. These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.

The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property."

[Emphasis added]
The conclusion of refutation is absurd, for the following reason: the information contained in the RNA replicators was random, not semantic. The information was gibberish and was being perpetuated chemically and randomly selected, not for informational quality or utility for life, but merely for the chemical ability of aggressive replication of one catalytic type over others. So the odds against the creation of meaningful, prescriptive, semantic information describing a living entity remain exactly as before: the information still must be randomly acquired, yet meet all the needs of life.

These experiments in no manner comes close to refuting the necessity of assembling a working cell which already contains the proper prescriptive semantic information which describes (a) the cell's semipermeable membrane, (b) the multi-featured mechanism for reproduction by mitosis, (c) the necessary DNA, and RNA polymerases and associated transcription molecules, and (d) the necessary proteins for the life processes of the cell - including metabolism, energy acquisition and waste elimination, (e) the necessary amino acids for creating the proteins and polymerases. Further, all of this MUST be present in the first cell, if the cell is to be "alive" in the sense of metabolically sound and functioal, properly enclosed, accurately mitotic reproductive, and thus qualify to be the ancestor of all life on earth.

The fact that RNA self-catalyzes is unremarkable when it is attempted to be factored into the actual necessary complexity of the sufficient requirements for first life. And the odds against the random generation of these necessary components in first life remain beyond astronomical.

There is no "emergence" theory that has any meaning without the ability to produce, simultaneously, not only the physical components of the first cell, but also the information which is necessary for life and reproduction of the first cell.

I'm looking at the minimum sized Archaea cell, attempting to discern just how large the set of necessary components might have been in the simplest abiogenetic first life proposed under Materialism. It might take a while, because Archaea cells are fiendishly tiny, and I've not found much information on their internal structures, beyond DNA length. But stay tuned, I might find something reliable, sometime. And any suggestion for source material would be appreciated.

Homosexuals Take The Next Step: Unconditional Surrender of Your Soul

From Charles C. W. Cooke:
The Tolerant Jeweler Who Harbored an Impure Opinion of Same-Sex Marriage

"In the American Conservative yesterday, Rod Dreher related the following story:
So, a Canadian Christian jeweler custom-made a pair of engagement rings for a lesbian couple, Nicole White and Pam Renouf, at their request. Later, when they found out that the jeweler personally opposes same-sex marriage, they went to pieces and demanded their money back. The couple now believes the rings they ordered will have been tainted by having been fashioned by jeweler Esau Jardon’s hands, given what impure thoughts he holds in his mind.
One could be forgiven for wondering how we are all supposed to keep up. Last month, as Indiana’s rather tame religious-freedom legislation was being torched by the mob, America’s more devout dissenters were informed that the price of participation in the marketplace was the subjugation of one’s conscience to one’s Caesar. “You can’t opt out of the law,” the agitators explained. “This isn’t the Jim Crow South!” Their core message? That if we all keep quiet about our views — and if we treat commercial transactions as commercial transactions — nobody will end up getting hurt. Or, put another way: “Cater my wedding, you bigot.”

In Dreher’s story, alas, the opposite case appears to obtain. “We can’t be expected to honor our contracts with companies that disagree with us,” the outraged couple is arguing, “for that might taint our nuptials.” The new message? That we can’t all get along by keeping quiet, but instead need to positively affirm one another or face the consequences. Or, put another way: “Even if I ask you to, don’t cater my wedding, you bigot.”

Would that the agitators could settle on a strategy.

Being a dastardly free-market type, I have no objections whatsoever if White and Renouf prefer not to use a vendor whose religious convictions they abhor. Choice, not force, is the guiding star of the classical liberal’s ship: If a free person objects to a business because it has a political sign in its window or because its owners are wearing a yarmulke or because its clerk is using a Mac rather than a PC, that’s fine with me. But we ought to be clear about exactly what happened here. As CBC News confirms, White and Renouf did not walk idly past the window and immediately cross the offending jeweler off their list, and neither did they converse with him a little and discover him to be objectionable. Rather, they found him to be charming and pleasant and happy to acquiesce, and, having been suitably impressed by his offering, they happily entered into a contract with him. And then, having later uncovered what was in his heart, they refused to take “Yes” for an answer.

When the couple “found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage,” Dreher writes, they “balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield.” Which is ultimately to say that White and Renouf sought to break their contract — not, you will note, because he was rude or because he failed to deliver on his promises, but because they made a window into his soul and they did not like what they saw — and then, when he objected, to subject him to bullying and to threats until he caved. Is that “tolerance”?

[emphasis added]
The Left and its homosexual pets are now demanding total capitulation to their lifestyle. That's why it is protected with hate crime legal status. It's not enough to tolerate them. Now one must become one with them and their disorder. Otherwise, you WILL be punished.

A Dozen Reasons NOT To Engage Atheists

Twelve Reasons Why I Never Argue With Internet Atheists
I have found #12 to be particularly true:
"12, Atheism is dull - Atheists themselves may be exciting, charming, entertaining and vivacious people. It is not the atheists I object to as much as atheism. I say it is dull because it is, at its essence, it is a negation and a denial. There can be nothing festive about it. There can be nothing intriguing or mysterious about it. It is not fecund. It is a reduction not an addition. It is a negative not a positive. It is something empty, not full. I wrote further about this earlier this week here. It is therefore as motivating as a yawn… and as interesting."
Atheism is exactly nothing, in the sense of intellectual contribution. It is purely negation via denialism. The problem, though, is that after that anti-intellectual beginning in a person's worldview, the remainder of the worldview becomes intellectually corrupt as well. This is due to having lost the need for logic in support of one's worldview, any manner of irrational premises are easily adopted and claimed as Truth, including the premise that it is true that there is no truth.

While Atheism is dull, taken by itself, it is as exciting as any psychopathic adventure when extended to other elements of a worldview.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Human Class X "Deserves" Safe Spaces Without Any Human Class Y?

That's racist ONLY if human Class X is white. If Class X is not white, then they are entitled.
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

"Last week The Ryersonian reported on an incident that involved two first-year journalism students who were turned away from an event organized by Racialized Students' Collective because they are white. Since then there has been a lot of commentary on the piece and a lot of debate -- a lot of the criticism is valid.

There are two sides to the story: 1) the media has a right to attend public events and report on matters that are in the public interest. The student media needs to cover initiatives that are happening on campus so that we draw attention to them and in turn create awareness (The Ryersonian reported that one student said he was covering the meeting for an assignment). 2) Marginalized groups have a right to claim spaces in the public realm where they can share stories about the discrimination they have faced without judgment and intrusion from anyone else.

I am a person of colour and a journalist and so there are two conflicting voices inside my head. But in this case one voice, that of a person of colour, is louder and my conscience does not allow me to be impartial. I have to take a side.

The organizers of the event, the Racialized Students' Collective, should have done a better job of labelling this event as a safe space on the Ryerson Students' Union online calendar. They should label safe spaces clearly and maybe even host events that educate the public on what they mean. Doing so will help the public and the media have a better understanding of the purpose and value of these spaces.

However, the point to note is not that two white students were asked to leave the event, but rather that this was a safe space and that we as a newsroom, as a campus and as a society are not as knowledgeable as we should be about what these spaces mean.

It's not just important, but it's essential, for marginalized groups to have safe spaces on campus to engage with people who understand what they go through. Though this group is funded by Ryerson's student union, it works to serve a particular group and a particular purpose. Many students at Ryerson have encountered racism in their life that is impossible to forget and many are exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. This group and these sort of events allow people of colour to lay bare their experiences and to collectively combat this societal ailment. These spaces are rare places in the world not controlled by individuals who have power, who have privilege.

These spaces, which are forums where minority groups are protected from mainstream stereotypes and marginalization, are crucial to resistance of oppression and we, as a school and as a society, need to respect them.

Earlier in the week a newsroom colleague and I went to an ad-hoc committee meeting on sexual assault policy. When we arrived we were told it was a safe space, and that we would not be able to report on anything that would be discussed in the meeting.

We understood the value of these sorts of events, where people can share their common struggles. Our understanding let us attend and contribute to the conversation, even if we couldn't report about it.

We understood the people there had a right to privacy. They had a right to collectively work through the challenges society had imposed on them. They had a right to claim parts of the campus, parts of the world, for a few hours in hopes of creating broader social change.

The two students who tried to enter the RSC meeting said that they were embarrassed when they were asked to leave and that the group was being counterproductive in sectioning themselves off. Similarly, some of the comments on the piece written about these students speaks to the idea that excluding certain people from these events, this dialogue, is encouraging racial tension. Their embarrassment isn't as important as the other issues involved here."
A clear expression of their own "power and privilege" which trumps their Macro-aggression against their enemies, an aggression to which they are entitled.

As Instapundit said, sure; make certain it's "Separate But Equal". But wait! Isn't that exactly what MLK and the marchers fought against? Separate was and is never equal. Forced separation is an aggression against a class of humans. I remember signs saying "No X Allowed", and believe me, it was racist and was done by the self-entitled and privileged class (Democrats). That was four generations ago, as generations are created these days, every 18 years or so.

These children have not experienced Jim Crow, nor slavery, but have had every government benefit from Affirmative Action to welfare of all sorts, much od which is targeted specifically for minorities such as for consideration in government hiring of contractors. A lot of minorities have successfully leveraged this largesse; some just want excuses. Apparently what they can't stand is criticism of their spelling by white professors, and abuses so miniscule that they are called "micro" aggressions - in other words, abuse which only they can see, through their non-white eyes, because the "aggressions" are one-millionth of an actual aggression. Which merely means that they get to make up excuses for themselves and their failures, blaming them on invisible oppression, while indulging in feelsorry for themselves, instead of moving forward with steely vigor. Those who actually have moved forward relentlessly are rejected - people like Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell come to mind. Those people are not part of the Self-Pity Class.

Needing a Safe Self-Pity Space is not a mentally healthy pursuit, and group feelsorry is irrational. It should be discouraged by minority leaders but it will not be; it is too useful for the conduct of the Class War.

I get the feeling that they want to be "equal" to a false sense of what it is that western culture provides: equal opportunity to compete in a world which doesn't really care about you, but provides you with certain rights, anyway. What is not provided are things like guarantees of outcomes (which must be attained with purposeful actions), perfect safety for your fragile self-esteem, perfect equality of capability with all other humans. The real world is one of "suck it up, move on", which every white person lives in daily. No, they don't want equality in that environment. And not getting their utopia makes them sad.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Obama Wars on Climate Change But Not ISIS

Obama recently declared war on climate change; he wants us to believe that warming is more dangerous than borders which are open to the religion of peace. It can't be demonstrated conclusively that climate change has killed anyone, while Islamists kill more and more every day in more brutal ways. But there is a radical difference between the two, and a radical similarity.

The difference is that climate change is an easy messianic opportunity to save the world and punish the west, while messing with Islam is not easy when Leftists accept Islamists as congruent in their mutual hatred of the west and especially Christianity. Every western world citizen will be punished for producing the enemy, Climate Change; no Islamist is to be considered an enemy until after he has killed a western world citizen, and even then Islam will be exonerated. Christianity and Christians are the enemy, never Islam and Islamists.

The similarity is that fighting climate change (wealth redistribution and world law), and not doing much about ISIS et. al. (anti-colonialism and anti-nationalism) both are steps toward world government, which is a Leftist utopian craving.

A War Thought Won Heats Up Again

Perhaps after the Hobby Lobby win in the US Supreme Court, you thought that religious freedom was a legally recognized part of the American's rights under the First Amendment. Guess again:

Circuit Courts Strike Blows Against Religious Liberty

"On Tuesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Notre Dame could not reject healthcare coverage of contraception under the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. In fact, the court went further, ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) could not shield Notre Dame because contraceptive use was a “compelling state interest” overcoming the burden placed on religious Americans."

In other words, things sexual are now more important to the court than religious convictions.
"Meanwhile, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal from Priests for Life and other Catholic educational institutions a rehearing on a similar case. The religious groups said that by being forced to sign an exemption, and therefore causing the government to provide contraceptive coverage, their religious liberty had been violated. Like the Seventh Circuit, the DC Circuit rejected that argument, arguing, “In the case of women who get their insurance coverage through an accommodated employer, the law requires insurers to offer the women contraception under a separate plan–completely segregated from the objecting employer’s plan and its payments.”"
So neither a law, such as RFRA, nor the Constitution itself can protect the religious from another law - Obamacare. Thus Obamacare supercedes both law and constitutional rights defining religious protection. But it's worse than that: it is federal judges who control the rights of American citizens. And the federal judges are corrupt:
"In other words, federal judges trump religious beliefs, which cuts against the entire purpose of the RFRA and the First Amendment. The dissent concluded, “Make no mistake: the harm Plaintiffs complain of–and the harm this Court therefore is called to assess–is from their inability to conform their own actions and inactions to their religious beliefs without facing massive penalties from the government.”"
The courts are completely corrupt, matching the Department of Justice and the entire Obama Administration as well as the entire Democrat Party which supports this denial of rights. This will end up in the US Supreme Court, obviously, and the legal/constitutional guarantee of religious liberty is again in peril.

The AtheoLeft is actually only a small part of the USA. But it has infiltrated the castles of power and is determined to destroy the Other. They won't stop... until they are stopped powerfully and with finality.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Glenn Beck Supports Legalization of Drugs

Glenn Beck has finally come around, it appears.

I changed over to supporting the legalization of all drugs a few years back. My rationale is this: first, how would American life be different from the pervasive use of illegal drugs currently? It very likely would improve. Second, the drug war is both a lost cause and an incredibly expensive, deadly, and discriminatory abuse of power. Third, if there are to be drug laws they should be focused on crimes committed during drug use, and distribution to minors, and further, the punishment for both should be severe and removal from society should be for long durations. Fourth, the national wealth now squandered on the drug war should be refocused onto addiction research, prevention and, of course, treatment.

I believe that jails and prisons should be emptied of convicted drug abusers. Even drug pushers should be released if they committed no other crimes.

Ending the drug war by legalizing the drugs would also reduce other crimes which are currently associated with drug use and distribution. It would likely create a new industry similar to the alcohol manufacturing and distribution industry, which is regulated and prohibits abuse under the influence (although not severely enough).

Users will always use. That is a fact which, while sad, is incorrigible and intractable no matter how much national wealth is squandered trying to counter it.

I also changed my mind on capital punishment long ago, primarily due to the inadequacy of the justice system to provide actual justice. However, I'm close to thinking that capital punishment would be deserved for corrupting children by providing them with drugs. Even so, due to the flaws in the prosecutorial and judicial systems in the USA, I still would not support capital punishment for any reason, given that severe terms of removal from society would suffice to remove the threat to society.

SJWs Prepare a New War On American Rights

From Ed Morrissey:
"Last month, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman reported that backers of same-sex marriage laws will shift their efforts, now that it appears that courts are ready to impose a constitutional right to state recognition of those relationships. The big activists behind the legislative and court fight will start taking aim at other laws, especially those which allow for dissent and choice on participation in such events. The idea is to “protect people from prejudice” on the basis of sexual identity and orientation:"
The NYT, Maggie Haberman:
Gay Marriage Backers to Finance Anti-Discrimination Efforts

"The new effort, Freedom for All Americans — a $5 million-a-year campaign over the next five years — is predicated on the fights around gay marriage, which played out state by state until reaching the Supreme Court in a fight that, advocates hope, will legalize same-sex marriage nationally.

The idea behind FFAA is to eventually get a major federal nondiscrimination bill that protects people from prejudice based on sexuality and gender identity."
Like all things Leftist, the title is Orwellian and means the opposite from its claim. It is really a thought-crime law intended to push morals out altogether.

From The Federalist, Stella Morabito:
LGBT Activists Arm For Further War On Free Speech

" On the surface, this “Freedom for All” slogan sounds innocuous, almost like motherhood (to borrow a quaint notion). Who would ever support discrimination? But this is not your grandfather’s (another quaint notion) Civil Rights Act. Because that old notion of civil rights was back in the days when the First Amendment remained intact for all to enjoy. …

One of the coordinators of the project, hedge fund manager Dan Loeb, told The New York Times that pushing for these laws is “critical in order to change understanding against gays.” In other words, the laws themselves are supposed to lead to a change in the public attitudes. Can laws really do this?

Notwithstanding the awkward construction, Loeb’s statement is loaded. To claim that more anti-discrimination laws are “critical in order to change understanding against gays” basically reveals that the professed purpose of these laws is coercive thought reform.

Laws intended to change how individuals think—about anything—require enforced silencing. If the “Freedom for All Americans” meme is about freedom (which it’s not), then it’s only about negative freedom. That is, freedom from “discrimination.” Freedom from “hate.” Which basically gives carte blanche to those holding power (ultimately, the state) to define and cherry pick whatever “discrimination” and “hate” may mean before granting whatever due process is left over for the accused.

So laws of this sort, hiding under the fig leaf of “anti-discrimination,” will give the state the power to police speech and behaviors."
Ed Morrisey is reminded of the Sedition Act of 1918:
"What would have happened had we carved out this rather large exception to the First Amendment in, say, 1945? Had we handed the government the power to determine which speech was “hateful” and which was allowable at that point, would the civil rights movement succeeded as it did? Or would government have simply jailed people for upsetting others through their speech, imprisoning them for “hating” America as it was at that time?

For that matter, consider the anti-war movement that followed that era, in opposition to the Vietnam conflict. How would that movement, with its “America – love it or leave it” counter-response, have unfolded if the federal government decided that it was “hate speech” directed against the military? That could be considered a fair description of a significant amount of that rhetoric at the time.

Some will scoff at that hypothetical, but it actually did take place – fifty years earlier. The Sedition Act of 1918 did precisely that at the end of World War I, and the US prosecuted people for their dissent to the war. Railroad tycoon William Edenborn was arrested for scoffing at the idea that Germany could threaten the national security of the US in much the same manner as others do today about radical jihad in the Middle East."
The continuing destruction of Constitutional rights and liberty values is the natural outcome of AtheoLeftism. Atheism focuses on the destruction of social standards which are not its own, situational (personally adjudicated by the elite Atheist), and therefore totalitarian. The suppression of the Other is being forced currently by anti-triggering and anti-privilege warfare being not only encouraged but enforced in major universities, where diversity is only skin deep - literally. For a movement in which dogmatic narrative is supreme, diversity in thought is seditious to the narrative. Diversity of thought, therefore, must be destroyed. And first to go is freedom of speech.

Actually the very first to go has been the teaching of actual history, where free speech played an important role in the pursuit of liberty. But liberty for all is not the objective; liberty for the elite at the expense of the Other is the objective, with the Other now defined as immoral (even in thought) under the new morality which the elites are intent upon codifying into laws of persecution.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Demonstrations as Organized Theater - And Stiffing the Actors

Demonstrators occupied M.O.R.E. this week, and demanded their pay for demonstrating in Ferguson.

Staging Riots


"I mention the sad state of American journalism because yesterday we got a fleeting glimpse of the tip of what I believe is a very large iceberg; and, if there were any investigative journalists left, they could really go to town.

Yesterday, Katie Pavlich, Debra Heine, and Ed Driscoll drew our attention to a demonstration, unmentioned in the mainstream media, that took place in St. Louis and eventuated in the occupation of the offices of an outfit called MORE – Missourians for Organizing Reform and Empowerment. MORE is an offshoot of ACORN, and it is funded in part by George Soros’ omnipresent Open Society Institute (which has spent something like $5 billion supporting such outfits in recent years).

What makes this particular demonstration newsworthy is the fact that the demonstrators were demanding that they be paid, as promised, for the work they did in organizing demonstrations in Ferguson last summer. Here is part of what Debra Heine reports:
According to the January tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups to organize on-the-ground activists in Ferguson. Two of those organizations, MORE (Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment) and OBS (Organization for Black Struggle) have been financing #BlackLivesMatter protests in Ferguson and elsewhere. That is – those organizations actually pay people to show up at venues to do their clapping, chanting, and sign waving routines.

Think a bit about this. In recent years – since Barack Obama took office – we have witnessed a great deal of thuggish conduct. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? The demonstrations that the community-relations division of the Department of Justice helped organize against George Zimmerman in Florida? The riots in Ferguson, Missouri? The disruptive demonstrations in the Supreme Court building regarding Citizens United as the court began its last session? Those that recently interrupted Senate hearings? The demonstrations in New York and Boston that took place in the wake of Eric Garner’s death? And the recent riots in Baltimore?

The press has treated all of these as a series of spontaneous eruptions occasioned by understandable outrage on the part of the demonstrators. What we learned yesterday shows that much of what happened in Ferguson was theater."
It's now common knowledge that the Left, being without actual morals outside of class war, produces people who are phony liars, and who do not honor debts (such as taxes) if there's any way to get out of it.

And this reminds me of Rage Boy, the professional rage-meister.

Gay Editor of OUT Mag Suggests Less Gay Hysteria and is Met With Gay Hysteria

This NSF Work link is to an article in what apparently is a homosexual soft porn mag:
Pizza, With a Side of Gay Shame

" We act like petty tyrants exploding in anger whenever someone says something that falls foul of approved policy. Increasingly, of course, the targets of that anger are other LGBT people, because that is the way tyranny works — the enemy eventually becomes anyone who is not on exactly the same page, exactly the same word, at exactly the same time. It makes us less compassionate, less generous. Is gay-friendly macaroni and wedding pizza really worth that? "
While it is interesting that he is making a case for less intolerance from homosexuals, what is more interesting is the homosexual response in his comment section, including the suggestion that his magazine be boycotted. As even the author admits, the tyrants will always wind up eating their own (no pun intended). And they readily assert the combination card of Victimhood/Messiahism in the process. Homosexuals know that they are a separate class and they will use class warfare forever, relentlessly and intolerantly bullying dissenters to their values-free moral positioning. And now that there no longer exists any actual designation of sexual malbehavior as being indicative of a disorder, and laws to back that up, no amount of sexual depravity can be criticized any longer. The Kinsey spectrum of normal behaviors is at full tide, and one risks severe legal punishment to go against it. Including homosexuals who unwisely preach tolerance.