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.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Bleah
I am in town on a borrowed hot spot. The lightening strike Thursday night rendered the phones and internet dead. It took all day Thursay to get the trouble shooting of the phone lines done, around cattle issues and town appointments and a dead tractor too. I fixed the tractor, I need it. Finally discovered that the dead phones jumped to life when the wi-fi modem was disconnected from them. The modem seems to short out the lines when it is hooked up. Went to town for a new wi-fi modem from Walmart, which didn't work back at the farm because it was ethernet both in and out. But I need a phone line input. Back to town, Walmart has no such modem/router, then over to the only other hope in our small town, just in time for Radio Shack to lock their doors in my face.
Next day, back to Radio shack. Nope. Has to be provided by the DSL provider, Century Link. Back to the Farm, half hour on the phone, and they will send out a tech on monday between 8am and 5pm. Meantime, no internet. So back to town to find a hot spot. Here I am.
So my inputs will be sparse until we regain web access at home.
Next day, back to Radio shack. Nope. Has to be provided by the DSL provider, Century Link. Back to the Farm, half hour on the phone, and they will send out a tech on monday between 8am and 5pm. Meantime, no internet. So back to town to find a hot spot. Here I am.
So my inputs will be sparse until we regain web access at home.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Does Homosexuality Have A Cause?
It cannot be said, seriously anyway, that homosexual behaviors are an extension of “normative heterosexual” sexual behaviors, because they are the inverse of those normative behaviors. Some analysts declare outright that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. Yet it is also deviant, in the following sense:
The homosexual male is not attracted to a female vagina, he is attracted to a male anus, and the male penis. The homosexual male is not attracted to the female figure, he is attracted to the male figure and sometimes emulates the female figure; some male homosexuals become uber-masculine in order to attract other males.
Judging by the homosexual street festivals in San Francisco, some homosexuals engage in demeaning acts such as Golden Showers where they allow themselves to be urinated on. Other homosexual acts are fisting, oral-anal, oral-penis, mutual masturbation, scrotum/testicle sucking, anal instrument insertion (I know of one case where a light bulb was inserted anally, where it ultimately broke, resulting in an emergency room visit). There is anonymous sex using small holes in walls or barriers.
Being the complete inverse of heterosexual behavior and even repugnant to at least a high percentage of heterosexuals, how can homosexuality be considered normative? And even if that question is ignored for political correctness, it is obvious that speaking in terms of evolution (if we must), the homosexual practice is a dead end and is not beneficial to the perpetuation of the species. In terms of evolution, homosexuality is not an extension of procreative sexual attraction: heterosexuality.
Homosexuals claim not to be changeable in their sexual preference; they insist that it is not a choice. If it were a choice their behavior could be perceived as reversible, and morally wrong. They disassociate from bisexuals for whom same-sex encounters actually are a choice. Homosexuals now claim that all studies in this regard are unethical, and attempting to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality is unethical; it is criminalized in Britain.
Yet forty years of searching for a homosexual gene have failed. At this point it cannot be said that homosexuality is hardwired, a required behavior. And there are anecdotes of homosexual reversals that persist, and cases of adult-onset homosexuality (Note 1).
Does homosexuality even have a cause? The fact that it removes a person from the evolutionary chain and places him into a procreative dead end suggests, that yes, there must be a cause for such an evolutionary negative deviation (Note 2).
So, what is homosexuality if it is not a mental or emotional state, not a genetic or inborn state, not a chosen preference, and not normative? Either there is a hidden cause or one of the denied causes actually is the real cause.
We don’t have facts on the source or cause of homosexuality; what we can say is that it is the inverse of normative heterosexuality and is not an extension of that. We can say that there likely is a cause, and the cause likely is not genetic or inborn. Beyond that, only opinion exists, and research is stopped due to political correctness which is enforced by outrage of the homosexual lobby which is determined to completely normalize homosexuality. If homosexuality is normal, it cannot have a cause. By definition. Nor can it be judged, either politically, scientifically or morally. By definition.
Opinions on this are welcome.
Note 1: GLAAD New York Executive Director, Glennda Testone, relates that she was a “hard heterosexual” who got her first homosexual kiss at a gay bar, and she converted.
Note 2: Or else there is something wrong with the theory of evolution.
The homosexual male is not attracted to a female vagina, he is attracted to a male anus, and the male penis. The homosexual male is not attracted to the female figure, he is attracted to the male figure and sometimes emulates the female figure; some male homosexuals become uber-masculine in order to attract other males.
Judging by the homosexual street festivals in San Francisco, some homosexuals engage in demeaning acts such as Golden Showers where they allow themselves to be urinated on. Other homosexual acts are fisting, oral-anal, oral-penis, mutual masturbation, scrotum/testicle sucking, anal instrument insertion (I know of one case where a light bulb was inserted anally, where it ultimately broke, resulting in an emergency room visit). There is anonymous sex using small holes in walls or barriers.
Being the complete inverse of heterosexual behavior and even repugnant to at least a high percentage of heterosexuals, how can homosexuality be considered normative? And even if that question is ignored for political correctness, it is obvious that speaking in terms of evolution (if we must), the homosexual practice is a dead end and is not beneficial to the perpetuation of the species. In terms of evolution, homosexuality is not an extension of procreative sexual attraction: heterosexuality.
Homosexuals claim not to be changeable in their sexual preference; they insist that it is not a choice. If it were a choice their behavior could be perceived as reversible, and morally wrong. They disassociate from bisexuals for whom same-sex encounters actually are a choice. Homosexuals now claim that all studies in this regard are unethical, and attempting to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality is unethical; it is criminalized in Britain.
Yet forty years of searching for a homosexual gene have failed. At this point it cannot be said that homosexuality is hardwired, a required behavior. And there are anecdotes of homosexual reversals that persist, and cases of adult-onset homosexuality (Note 1).
Does homosexuality even have a cause? The fact that it removes a person from the evolutionary chain and places him into a procreative dead end suggests, that yes, there must be a cause for such an evolutionary negative deviation (Note 2).
So, what is homosexuality if it is not a mental or emotional state, not a genetic or inborn state, not a chosen preference, and not normative? Either there is a hidden cause or one of the denied causes actually is the real cause.
We don’t have facts on the source or cause of homosexuality; what we can say is that it is the inverse of normative heterosexuality and is not an extension of that. We can say that there likely is a cause, and the cause likely is not genetic or inborn. Beyond that, only opinion exists, and research is stopped due to political correctness which is enforced by outrage of the homosexual lobby which is determined to completely normalize homosexuality. If homosexuality is normal, it cannot have a cause. By definition. Nor can it be judged, either politically, scientifically or morally. By definition.
Opinions on this are welcome.
Note 1: GLAAD New York Executive Director, Glennda Testone, relates that she was a “hard heterosexual” who got her first homosexual kiss at a gay bar, and she converted.
Note 2: Or else there is something wrong with the theory of evolution.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Re-Post: The Persistent Avoidance by godless
[Originally posted Monday, July 9, 2012; godless has still not provided answers with actual evidence to back up his claims, and has not refuted the basics which he has claimed don't even exist, nor has he addressed the obvious logic failures in his claims. The challenges which godless faces are now in bold. ed.]
Because the following exchange with godless has gotten lengthy I have made it into a post.
godless,
If you're still around, here is a list of things from previous threads for you to address, some of which you have avoided for the term of your duration here.
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
3. Regarding Hitchens and unsupported claims:
godless:
”Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.”
Stan:
Interesting. Where is the link to this fascinating calculation? Where is the data? How many claims have been included in this data? Or is this just more bullshit, with no actual calculations, only a fairy tale to cover up for a Jump To Conclusion?
Without data for evidence, this can be dismissed – without evidence.
So provide the data, method of data taking, etc.
4(a). godless:
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".”
Stan:
godless, brace yourself: I am going to wake you up by yelling at you. You have reverted in a knee-jerk fashion to your old, failed arguments. Time to wake up, bro.
We’ve been through this too many times now. SHOW ME the theists who deny the basic theism syllogism. Provide EVIDENCE of their denial of that deduction. You are making claims without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence!!
4(b). Show why it is not necessary to disprove the basis for Theism, without the excuse that there might be other definitions. If Theism is false, then all definitions of Theism are false. Disprove the one (1) definition which you have been given here by me.
godless:
” If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.”
Stan:
”The actual question du jour is why should anyone not dismiss your rejections, when you have not proven that theists will reject the basis for Basic theism, the necessary and sufficient conditions which even you do not refute after being provided with them time and time and time again. Your argument is not against Basic Theism - which you are now actively avoiding: ACTIVELY AVOIDING. You want to argue ecclesiasticism as if that were the actual basis for Theism, so that you can AVOID ARGUING AGAINST THE ACTUAL COMMON BASIS FOR THEISM. You are making excuses, not arguments.”
The rational evidence has been given to you; there is physical evidence for you to refute (still there at Lourdes); your claim ( "and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.") is blatantly and obviously FALSE.
Disprove the rational and physical evidence presented to you. WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, YOUR CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
5. godless:
”Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.”
Aside from the issue that your complaint is not relevant to the ACTUAL RATIONAL BASIS FOR THEISM, you have been given claims of tangible evidence to refute – the claims made at Lourdes, 150 years ago – and you have not refuted and cannot refute those EITHER.
However, your position blatantly disregards the specific issue of (a) demanding PHYSICAL evidence, of (b) NON_PHYSICAL existence. That is a Category Error.
Your comment does not reflect the question you must answer:
Why are you comfortable with logic errors in your thought process?
Is it just this(?):
godless:
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.”
First: Provide evidence showing specific material evidence that a deductive claim has no meaning. WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOUR CLAIM MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Second: You have confused the two separate definitions of material: (a) physical, vs. (b) pertinent. When you confuse definitions, you demonstrate your own confusion.
Third: And if you don’t “care”, then why not go somewhere else to waste time?
6. Stan:
”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
godless:
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.”
It is made specifically in order to illuminate the exact demand made by Atheists on Theists, and which you made just above: your demand is intellectually dishonest and your complaint is Special Pleading for poor Atheists, who can’t prove their own claims. If your demand on Theists is OK, then it is also OK to make that same demand on Atheists. [Prove this wrong]
7. godless:
”You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism”
Stan:
First you say that Theism must have material components (and I say, here: refute Lourdes);
And here you say that non-material existence is flimsy and can’t be proven. ( I say: then you admit that Atheist's demanding such evidence is a rational failure under Philosophical Materialism, that failed philosophy, and that Atheism, being without logic or evidence is flimsy and can't be proven).
Most importantly, proving a negative is absolutely and definitely possible if only material existence is considered as you wish: I can prove that you are not now present in this room. So if Materialism is your only source of knowledge, then you can prove negatives of material things, IFF you do not make ridiculous, universal, material claims. Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
"Flimsy" is an excuse for no action on your part. None. Excuses only. Flimsy excuses. All without evidence in their support.
8. godless:
”But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.”
Stan:
”You are radically asleep, hoot. Both logical and physical evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you do claim it does not exist. Other than that you avoid it like the plague, in fear of what would happen to your ideology, I suppose. Claiming that there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, and the evidence given to you proves that your claim of no evidence is wrong, false, and irrational.
This is getting boring, repetitively going through your persistent failures to engage with actual arguments. Kindly at least engage the arguments being made, OK? One last time, if you cannot do the following, you and your Atheism have failed:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
Because the following exchange with godless has gotten lengthy I have made it into a post.
godless,
If you're still around, here is a list of things from previous threads for you to address, some of which you have avoided for the term of your duration here.
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
3. Regarding Hitchens and unsupported claims:
godless:
”Yes you can. I've said at least twice now. You can rack up all the unsupported claims made which have been validated, and rack up all the unsupported claims made which have never been validated, and deduce a probability of the likely truth of future unsupported claims.”
Stan:
Interesting. Where is the link to this fascinating calculation? Where is the data? How many claims have been included in this data? Or is this just more bullshit, with no actual calculations, only a fairy tale to cover up for a Jump To Conclusion?
Without data for evidence, this can be dismissed – without evidence.
So provide the data, method of data taking, etc.
4(a). godless:
This is always way theism is so tenacious and impossible to disprove. You provide evidence or reason on one theists interpretation and a billion others chime in "well that's not MY god".”
Stan:
godless, brace yourself: I am going to wake you up by yelling at you. You have reverted in a knee-jerk fashion to your old, failed arguments. Time to wake up, bro.
We’ve been through this too many times now. SHOW ME the theists who deny the basic theism syllogism. Provide EVIDENCE of their denial of that deduction. You are making claims without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence!!
4(b). Show why it is not necessary to disprove the basis for Theism, without the excuse that there might be other definitions. If Theism is false, then all definitions of Theism are false. Disprove the one (1) definition which you have been given here by me.
godless:
” If the people that supposedly believe this bullshit can't agree, and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.”
Stan:
”The actual question du jour is why should anyone not dismiss your rejections, when you have not proven that theists will reject the basis for Basic theism, the necessary and sufficient conditions which even you do not refute after being provided with them time and time and time again. Your argument is not against Basic Theism - which you are now actively avoiding: ACTIVELY AVOIDING. You want to argue ecclesiasticism as if that were the actual basis for Theism, so that you can AVOID ARGUING AGAINST THE ACTUAL COMMON BASIS FOR THEISM. You are making excuses, not arguments.”
The rational evidence has been given to you; there is physical evidence for you to refute (still there at Lourdes); your claim ( "and there is no supporting evidence, why the fuck should anyone ever take you seriously.") is blatantly and obviously FALSE.
Disprove the rational and physical evidence presented to you. WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, YOUR CLAIMS MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
5. godless:
”Theists frequently make tangible claims on the nature of reality. There is no Category Error requesting evidence of such extraordinary claims.”
Aside from the issue that your complaint is not relevant to the ACTUAL RATIONAL BASIS FOR THEISM, you have been given claims of tangible evidence to refute – the claims made at Lourdes, 150 years ago – and you have not refuted and cannot refute those EITHER.
However, your position blatantly disregards the specific issue of (a) demanding PHYSICAL evidence, of (b) NON_PHYSICAL existence. That is a Category Error.
Your comment does not reflect the question you must answer:
Why are you comfortable with logic errors in your thought process?
Is it just this(?):
godless:
And if you don't make tangible claims on the nature of reality? Who cares? Your claim is then meaningless. Literally immaterial.”
First: Provide evidence showing specific material evidence that a deductive claim has no meaning. WITHOUT EVIDENCE, YOUR CLAIM MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Second: You have confused the two separate definitions of material: (a) physical, vs. (b) pertinent. When you confuse definitions, you demonstrate your own confusion.
Third: And if you don’t “care”, then why not go somewhere else to waste time?
6. Stan:
”Not only can you not prove a non-existence, you cannot deduce a non-existence.
godless:
Right. Which is why your insistence on placing a burden of evidence on atheists is dishonest.”
It is made specifically in order to illuminate the exact demand made by Atheists on Theists, and which you made just above: your demand is intellectually dishonest and your complaint is Special Pleading for poor Atheists, who can’t prove their own claims. If your demand on Theists is OK, then it is also OK to make that same demand on Atheists. [Prove this wrong]
7. godless:
”You can't ever prove a negative. Certainly not something with such a flimsy immaterial description such as theism”
Stan:
First you say that Theism must have material components (and I say, here: refute Lourdes);
And here you say that non-material existence is flimsy and can’t be proven. ( I say: then you admit that Atheist's demanding such evidence is a rational failure under Philosophical Materialism, that failed philosophy, and that Atheism, being without logic or evidence is flimsy and can't be proven).
Most importantly, proving a negative is absolutely and definitely possible if only material existence is considered as you wish: I can prove that you are not now present in this room. So if Materialism is your only source of knowledge, then you can prove negatives of material things, IFF you do not make ridiculous, universal, material claims. Atheism is a ridiculous, universal, material claim. And it is without material evidence and can be rejected on that count alone.
"Flimsy" is an excuse for no action on your part. None. Excuses only. Flimsy excuses. All without evidence in their support.
8. godless:
”But it is just because theism is such a flimsy, immaterial, undefinable, extraordinary, evidence-less, etc etc etc BULLSHIT claim, that it is dismissed.”
Stan:
”You are radically asleep, hoot. Both logical and physical evidence has been given to you many, many times; you do not refute it, but you do claim it does not exist. Other than that you avoid it like the plague, in fear of what would happen to your ideology, I suppose. Claiming that there is no evidence is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, and the evidence given to you proves that your claim of no evidence is wrong, false, and irrational.
This is getting boring, repetitively going through your persistent failures to engage with actual arguments. Kindly at least engage the arguments being made, OK? One last time, if you cannot do the following, you and your Atheism have failed:
1. Refute the necessary and sufficient conditions for Theism using disciplined deductive logic.
2. Refute the claims of tangible evidence at Lourdes, using empirical science in its fullest objective capacity.
Quote of the Day 8.13.12
"We merely don't accept one more sexual practice than you don't accept."
Anon.
Anon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)