I am actually furious. After all the false charges against Sarah Palin for causing the shooting in Arizona, and the false charges against the Tea Party CONSTANTLY for violence which never occured except by Leftist demonstrators attacking the fringes (usually against those in wheelchairs or weaker observers), the orgasmic hate fest that the homosexualphiles put on regarding Chick fil A incited an actual hate inspired shooting at FRC.
It will be too much, of course, to ask all the empathy-addled New Rules pushers to admit to their contribution to this act. This time it will be “No True Atheist/Homosexual/Leftist” would do such a thing. Or maybe "the FRC brought this on itself: it deserves some gunshots". The evidence seems to say otherwise. The evidence seems to say that the shooter was incited by the hate invective against FRC and Chik fil A. But evidence is useless in pursuing conversations with these ideological advocates.
In all of the discussions I have observed, both here and on other blogs and advocate sites, there is no consideration at all of the consequences of their push to CHANGE THE RULES. We must, must, must change the rules, and we must, must, must punish the bigots who stand in the way in every way. Their immorality must, must, must cease, and we the righteous must, must, must CHANGE THE RUES no matter who doesn’t like it or what the consequences are.
Even the consequences of their shrieking hate rants (screaming self-righteous morality for themselves from their position of total amorality), the consequences are of no interest at all, because it is immoral not to CHANGE THE RULES.
So the following questions which might be asked of the self righteous are bigoted:
Who gave them the right to change the rules?
Under what system of objective morality are the NEW RULES moral?
Where did this NEW system of objective morality come from?
Who made it up, and under what moral authority?
Why is it immoral to object to it?
It is obvious that the NEW MORALITY is really just Nietzsche’s Will To Power in action, where changes in morality go to the most powerful. That is why all the screaming is going on. Political Correctness is the forerunner of moral power and the NEW MORALITY, and it is established by screaming and by discrimination against the OLD, FIXED MORALITY. The NEW MORALITY is now the only possible moral theory. The OLD MORALTY is suddenly immoral, and its immoral advocates must be overcome regardless of the method required to do so. In the name of the NEW MORALITY.
And because for Relativists any fixed morality is evil, the NEW MORALITY need not demonstrate that it really is objective, or fixed, or has any moral reason or content at all, except that they want it and they can rationalize some retrofit reasons, and declare them moral: the NEW EQUALITY, for example.
That brings us to consequences. If the NEW RULES and the NEW MORALITY are just products of the Will To Power of Relativism, then they have no staying power. A future force more powerful than the current homosexualphiles will be emboldened by the success of the power play that worked for homosexuality. The morality of changing to NEW RULES as power allows has been established.
Yet the suggestion that the logic behind the NEW RULES and NEW MORALITY also apply handily to still other disorders, such as pedophilia, brings on similar screams of denial. But there is no reason to accept such denials, because all of the now dead arguments against homosexuality are also starting to fail against pedophilia.
Let’s take a few of the homosexualphilic arguments made here.
“Left handedness was once discriminated against but now is not.”
If that is a satisfactory argument against any discrimination, then no disorder may be discriminated against, including pedophilia.
”Why do we care about X in sexual activities?” Where X = gender.
If we substitute X=age for gender, or X=species for gender, or X=being alive for gender, or X=anything whatsoever for gender, then there are no sexual disorders.
”We must have EQUALITY in all things”
Then that must apply to all disorders, or IN-EQUALITY will be entrenched in the NEW MORALITY.
”homosexuals are nice, regular people”
So are pedophiles.
”To discriminate is HATE”
Then discriminating against pedophiles is HATE.
”Pedophilia is criminal and mentally ill; it should be discriminated against”
Loop up a few lines to “To Discriminate is HATE”; then google “non-coherent”.
”You people are such [Name 1…. Name n].” “I hope you [die; choke on your chicken sandwich, etc ad nauseum]”. “You are all closet/repressed homosexuals”.
Not an argument. Demonstrates lack of ability to support position. Juvenile behavior. Hate speech.
Denial that changing the rules will result in changing the rules is irrational.
Well, this didn’t help much. I am still furious. The war has been declared by the homosexual AtheoLeft. I wonder if they are ready. They never seem to see any consequences for their own actions. But they have already won over the under educated and simple minded who get their morals from sitcoms: TV networks and Hollywood are the new moral authorities.
I am furious; and you are lucky that I don't have unlimited access to the internet right now.
Gotta go.
16 comments:
i'm loving it. i hope that christian groups sit and are prepared to defend themselves and do not counter attack. these atheist fools will ruin themselves on their own.
I shouldn't let it bother you, Stan.
Truth is, the homosexuals and Will to Power self-destructive types will jump up and down just as they have for thousands of years. If they don't actually bring on their own immediate self-extinction from apoplexy, they may come to the inevitable conclusion that they are hothouse flowers living in a very delicate environment. It's as if they were delicate roses that were determined to smash the walls of the greenhouse if they cannot grow the way they want to grow.
Of course, this holds all the rest of the flowers hostage to their wishes.
Meanwhile, regular folks who don't require the hothouse to survive and thrive will look up from their real lives, shake their heads and, if they pay these jerks any mind at all, tell them to shut the hell up and get back to work.
And all this happened this month.
Stan, I think you should enable comment moderation again. Sure, a few messages get lost. Better that than what's being posted now.
Boy, the sockpuppets sure are coming out of the woodwork this week...
"Even the consequences of their shrieking hate rants (screaming self-righteous morality for themselves from their position of total amorality), the consequences are of no interest at all, because it is immoral not to CHANGE THE RULES."
The "rules", sorry I mean "THE RULES", change slowly over time. From being executed if you work on the Sabbath to slavery to interracial marriage. Some people don't think "but this is how it has always been done!" is a good enough reason for discrimination.
"The war has been declared by the homosexual AtheoLeft. I wonder if they are ready. They never seem to see any consequences for their own actions."
There's a war going on alright; and the LGBT community has been falling on the front lines of that war for decades.
When these people talk about the Missouri lesbian that was savagely beaten on her front porch after having been pulled out of her house by teenagers who screamed anti-gay slurs at her while they beat her, when these people talk about the transgender girl who was found stabbed to death on the west side of chicago (the second transgender girl found dead there in two month), when these people talk about those victims of the war the same way they talk about this security guard that was working for a hate group - then I'll believe that they are being genuine. Until then they are bloviating.
Stan--what is your stance on the morality of the commenter above me "Take it Back"? How would you defend a comment like that as morally good or would you decree that he/she is immoral?
In all of the discussions I have observed, both here and on other blogs and advocate sites, there is no consideration at all of the consequences of their push to CHANGE THE RULES.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "consequences" will be that gay people get married. What's wrong with that?
Furious Stan wrote:
... incited an actual hate inspired shooting at FRC
Nothing justifies a shooting. NOTHING. That's the Christian position AND the AtheoLeft position. Claiming otherwise is irrational.
But evidence is useless in pursuing conversations with these ideological advocates.
Evidence is useless in pursuing any conversation with any emotionally charged person.
there is no consideration at all of the consequences of their push to CHANGE THE RULES.
That is actually the complete opposite. ALL that matters are the consequences. That's the AtheoLeft position.
Who gave them the right to change the rules?
We, the people, make rules for ourselves.
Under what system of objective morality are the NEW RULES moral?
Objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality is necessarily subjective as it is a judgment. If morality can be objective, than beauty is objective, which is absurd.
Why is it immoral to object to it?
It's not immoral; it's irrational (assuming we are still talking about homosexuality...)
It is obvious that the NEW MORALITY is really just Nietzsche’s Will To Power in action, where changes in morality go to the most powerful.
Quite the opposite. Homosexuals have always been the weak ones... the ones who are pushed aside, shunned, ridiculed when not molested, attacked or killed. Sometimes it's not homosexuals but guys who look too much like "fags".
...discrimination against the OLD, FIXED MORALITY.
It's quite fascinating that someone who pretends to be rational and logical can make such a broad ignorant statement. History teaches us a complete different picture of what morality means for individuals, families and societies as a whole. It changes from time to time and person to person. We have conventions, laws and shared values, but in the end, we all make our own judgment based on our context.
And because for Relativists any fixed morality is evil
Not evil, just out of touch with reality. It's perfectly normal to try to revise your own views regarding morality. Hence, having a 'fixed' morality, whatever that means, seem sound completely irrational. Kids for example have a very different code of moral than they adult counterpart. Is one right and the other wrong? The answer is not simple in all cases...
Yet the suggestion that the logic behind the NEW RULES and NEW MORALITY also apply handily to still other disorders, such as pedophilia, brings on similar screams of denial. But there is no reason to accept such denials, because all of the now dead arguments against homosexuality are also starting to fail against pedophilia.
You seem to simply misunderstand the issue and the arguments. Pedophilia is the same as homosexuality in the sense that people don't choose to be attracted to kids, nor do people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. The difference is that we have good reasons to prevent pedophiles from acting on their urges, while there is no reason to stop homosexuals based solely on the gender of the two people involved in the sexual action being analyzed.
Let’s take a few of the homosexualphilic arguments made here.
“Left handedness was once discriminated against but now is not.”
If that is a satisfactory argument against any discrimination, then no disorder may be discriminated against, including pedophilia.
The choice of word is improper. There is no reason to discriminate against the 'disorder', but we have good reasons to discriminate against the behavior.
(Putting this as a single post because that's the one that really matters imo)
”Why do we care about X in sexual activities?” Where X = gender.
If we substitute X=age for gender, or X=species for gender, or X=being alive for gender, or X=anything whatsoever for gender, then there are no sexual disorders.
The point is that we CANNOT replace 'X' by whatever we want and get some sort of universal rule. THAT IS THE POINT.
So let me ask you one last time Stan. Why do you care about
X = GENDER
?
WHY?
Yes we should care about...
X = AGE
...because we don't want people fucking kids.
X = SPECIES
...because, well, actually if they really want to do it that's fine, but that's just disgusting, and if it goes too far it can be animal cruelty.
X = BEING ALIVE
...because that's violating the last wishes of a human being. If it was in the will of the person, then fine, go for it you crazy necrophile and messed up dead person.
But why Stan, for frack sake, why do you care about X = GENDER?
Sorry, PM. No, actually, I am not sorry. I am glad you posted, because for once, you actually revealed the cause behind your interminable posts (nearly as long as mine!)
What am I talking about? You posted an extended 'defense' of homosexuality and the AtheoLeftist agenda. Bully for you. This time, however, you overstepped in your zeal and we caught a glimpse of the Man Behind the Curtain. To wit:
"Objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality is necessarily subjective as it is a judgment. If morality can be objective, than beauty is objective, which is absurd."
This is the *core* of all the 'arguments' that follow - everything is subjective, up to and including ethical systems.
*EVERYTHING*.
I don't normally do caps, because in my mind that is shouting. It's rude. But reason is out of court when ethics and, yes, beauty are determined to be merely subjective. Because reason follows them sooner or later and when *it* is determined to be 'merely subjective', your position has no more power than whatever firearm you happen to possess.
Stan was not joking or raving when he wrote of the persistent 'Will to Power'. This is why it exists - you have no way of convincing folks of your 'opinion' other than through brute force.
I don't care if you agree with this or not. I don't care if you think you can pick and choose a new ethical system or not. I don't expect you to *ever* agree, because this is the bedrock of all the other stuff you wrote up there. And personally, I think you are engaging in behavior that strongly favors your own ego.
What I am saying is, as long as you have this lie at the core of your belief system, you are attempting to live a contradiction. You can't do it. Since the two cancel, you wind up with a big Nothing at the center of your being. Surprise! And it taints everything you say and do.
Lewis did not refer to it as the 'Poison of Subjectivism' for nothing.
This is the *core* of all the 'arguments' that follow - everything is subjective, up to and including ethical systems.
"Morality is subjective" means "Everything is subjective" in your mind Steven?
PM, you can read. Right? So read what I wrote and come to your own conclusions. If morality = what I personally prefer in terms of behavior, there is no 'improvement' possible, under any circumstances. My morals shift depending on my diet, circumstances, etc. But then, if that is true, then I have no grounds for correcting anyone else for any reason whatever - since they are obeying their morality (one presumes) and it's just different from mine.
What it boils down to is this: can you force your morality on others? You cannot appeal to some 'baseline' moral standard, because that goes flat against your own statement that morality is subjective.
What happens is this: you decide what is good for the rest of us, according to your own subjective preference, and then you try to legislate it, forcing us to follow suit or pay in one way or another.
That is the concept behind Will to Power. I believe Stan rejects it, as I do, because it claims one set of rules for us and a quite different set of standards for the 'moralizers'. You can't enforce your rules on us and obey them at the same time because the idea of subjective morals is, at bottom, self-contradictory.
And yes, this poisons everything you do. You've established at the center of your being a good solid lie - that you can take others to task for judging people without being judgmental yourself.
Morality is probably less what you prefer and more what society prefers.
@itllto: 'society' is just another way of describing what individuals like me prefer en masse. Society is not a person, but the general population, the majority. And it enforces its morality through power.
Even if morality were what 'the largest number of people prefer' (and I deny that it is), that would not prevent it from being merely an expression of preference. In other words, subjective. The application of power may make its weight felt - but it does not make the subjectivism go away.
Morality is about what we *ought* to do, not what we *want* to do. Personal preferences are about what we *want*, not necessarily what we *ought* to do. Morality and personal preference are, except in a person of discipline (or in a state of grace), eternally at odds with one another.
Steven,
Yes I can read, thanks for asking; very civil and mature of you.
If morality = what I personally prefer in terms of behavior
I'm glad you wrote 'if' in front because that's not what morality is, for anybody afaik. There are things that I certainly DON'T prefer, but are moral. The opposite is true; there are things that I certainly would like to do, but are immoral.
My morals shift depending on my diet, circumstances, etc. But then, if that is true, then I have no grounds for correcting anyone else for any reason whatever - since they are obeying their morality (one presumes) and it's just different from mine.
It's funny that you mention 'diet' and 'circumstances' because the two could not be more opposite. The problem is that you are obviously using ridicule in order to insult, instead of actually trying to address the issue and defend your position.
No, my 'diet of the day' will never influence any moral choices, but yes, the circumstances will, because that's ALL that matters. This is what being a relativist is about. It's focusing on the fact that moral decisions should be looked at under proper light, in the current context.
What it boils down to is this: can you force your morality on others?
No it does not, for multiple reasons. First, I consider it immoral to force my own moral choices on other, as a baseline. But at the same time, I do consider that certain immoral acts should be made illegal and punished, to an appropriate degree, depending on the context. I also think that others should not impose their own choices on my life unless they can show how their own life becomes affected by my decisions.
You cannot appeal to some 'baseline' moral standard, because that goes flat against your own statement that morality is subjective. What happens is this: you decide what is good for the rest of us, according to your own subjective preference, and then you try to legislate it, forcing us to follow suit or pay in one way or another.
...
Yet I just did, because you confuse 'subjective' with 'constantly changing'. As I noted above, AND in a previous comment, moral choices are based on individual and shared values. These are what one could label as a 'baseline' moral standard.
For example, I mentioned 'not forcing your moral choice on others' as a baseline. That's an example of something that would fall under the value simply called 'freedom'. I firmly believing in the right of all human beings to be free; free of making choices, free to express themselves, free to love who they want, free to have a family of their own, free to pick a profession, and so on... This is one thing which gets very close to what you label an 'objective' morality.
There is nothing objective about it though, as it is still my opinion that freedom is 'good'. One could argue that freedom is bad and lead to chaos. We could then discuss what freedom really means for the two parties and try to come up with a common ground.
Stan discussed it at length in his latest post I think, but I have only skimmed through it for now. Perhaps the conversation will shift there now... Actually wait, why am I even calling this a discussion? All you did Steven is insult my position and distort it.
Please don't be offended if I ignore future post that goes in the same line...
Stan is silent as Stan has broken his own rules and abandoned logic and considered thought for hysterical paranoia? You almost had me convinced but the fraud is unveiled.
Post a Comment