| Pages:
1
2
3 |
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The view of homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' exists almost exclusively in Paleomeircancon circles. It's not science, it's about as scientific as
Nazi 'race hygiene'.
See Rosco, you’ve got a bit of a problem here: I know your ilk all too well from multiple (too many) sorties, armpit high wellies, goggles and
washing peg (on the nose) donned, into your part of the open sewers of the blogosphere.
Views held on homosexuality in the ‘God, Gays ‘n Guns’ part of the Interwebs are nothing but a large conspiracy theory, at the level of Roswell
or worse. Everything and the kitchen sink gets dragged into it, resulting in a highly self-contradictory body of pseudo-science and histrionic DIY
‘psychology’, with lashings of ill-digested ‘patriotism’ to make it all even more risible and unpalatable.
Still, you haven’t answered my question. Come on, big boy: what’s to become of the ‘mentally ill’? Sectioning? Psychotherapy? Forced
conversion to your pubescent form of Godology? What’s it to be in the land of the free?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Confusion .....foolish thinking....equivocation
I rest my case.
As for what to do with all those who have Downs syndrome ...or a hundred variants of other disorders,
it would of course depend on the level the persons are challenged. But pretending they aren't challenged is
denying the reality of what is there....they don't "get it".
And there's probably no therapy to fix that.
How do you fix color blindness or pretend that any of them will be the next Rembrandt just so as not to hurt their feelings or be discriminatory?
I am not advocating leper colonies for homosexuals, what I am saying is that society has no obligation to bend over forwards or backwards to be
adaptive to their special needs,
or special demands, particularly where those demands are destructively devaluing of traditional social institutions like marriage and family. It is
correct to somewhere draw the line, and those two things are definitely there.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7978
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I just stepped back from this thread after it became more and more agressive.
I just want to say that the main sin of mankind is being incapable of accepting other's different beliefs or worldviews.
I consider myself a christian, but what I do believe is that there must be room for people to believe what they want and to live how they want. And I
am very very happy that I do not have to judge, my task is just to be here and try to live a life such as God likes it. What other people are doing
with their life is their responsibility and I am quite sure that God is more graceful than many christians believe He is.
But on the other hand, I more and more get the feeling that the 'secular church' is getting more and more oppressive and wants to give less and less
freedom to people who believe otherwise. In Germany parents are put in jail for a few days, simply because they do not have their children attend a
governmental program about sex with a certain very liberal point of view, which is not their point of view. In the Netherlands new-coming muslim
people are forced to view an "introduction to the Netherlands"' complete with top-less girls playing on the Dutch beaches, homosexuals meeting in
parks in Amsterdam doing their things and so the list goes on. I accept freedom of live, but I do not want to be forced to swallow the crap of these
so-called progressive enlightened people. They think that they are superior and all other people, who believe otherwise are retarded idiots still
living in the middle ages or something like that.
@Blogfast25: I want to come back on that case of the 52-year old man in Belgium. This man had a little fire in his house, not related to the
chemicals. He called the fire department to help him. These people came and helped him quickly finishing the fire. The damage was limited and no
adhering rooms or houses were affected. These people then inspected the rest of the house, checking for risk of fire in other places (this is standard
procedure in many cities, also in the Netherlands) and while doing so they found the chemicals. The rest of the story has become one big nightmare for
this guy. Appr. 2 square meters space, filled with bottles and so on was taken away from his house for safe destruction, a few other supposedly very
toxic chemicals were taken away for further inspection in a special laboratory.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Why, what do you have in mind for Downs [sic] syndrome sufferers?
Your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes. Is what you have in mind for those 'mentally ill' perhaps a little too unspeakable to write down
in a public space?
Your need to drag pseudo-sciece into this, instead of sticking to 'theological' arguments, is also most telling.
For all your bluster on not being a bigot, your views on this particular minority are in essence no different from those views held on other
minorities, whether they be Jews, American/European Muslisms, Hispanics etc etc. A blind man can see that but a person blinded by religion may not...
A million years (or so) of evolution and the 'the Greatest Nation on Earth' still sports a sizeable portion of the population that holds views that
would have been applauded by the Nazis.
The mind truly boggles...
I might dedicate a blog post to this exchange. 'Fun with a Paleoconservative' should attract a few readers.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Woelen:
I’m not an expert on Belgian Law but as far as I know possessing the chemicals you mentioned is not illegal in that country. If I’m right about
that then the Belgian authorities may have acted illegally. Unfortunately that happens. But do you really think the case is representative or just a
fluke? I don’t hear much at all about Belgians being arrested for possession of chemicals (but I don’t have much to do with Belgium nowadays).
As regards the other abominations you mention, I commiserate. Again though we need to ask the question: ‘how often does this happen?’ Also Lex
Dura Sed Lex: if given laws are voted in legally by a majority of representatives of the People then they have to be enforced. Those opposed to
these laws should campaign to have them rescinded or resort to Civil Disobedience.
”They think that they are superior and all other people, who believe otherwise are retarded idiots still living in the middle ages or something
like that.”
Horrid views on ‘liberals’ also flow from the more conservative parts of populations to said liberals. A bit pot and kettle, that one…
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Conservatives are such party animals, it is enough to make a sailor blush.
Just keep them away from the children 
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
As regards Rosco’s:
”And to be clear about the matter of military service, it would also be my view there should be zero tolerance there as well, a 100%
disqualification is what should be in effect, not any half measures.”
A Jackie Mason joke springs to mind:
‘What’s the worst that could happen if he [a homosexual serviceman] wants to make love to you [a straight serviceman]?
Tell him you’re busy. Or do as your wife does: tell him you’ve got a head ache!’
|
|
|
Mixell
Hazard to Others
Posts: 449
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  | | Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors. |
I am a husband to a wife and a father to children. I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique
relationship which for millenia has been by definition the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .....
no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
So a hundred million homosexuals and their partners can't be wrong huh to redefine their "committed relationships" as being marriage? It is a
preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with something that is definitely not
marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and established idea and reality of
what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred,
including more probably than not the very definition of the status of the parents whose marriage was the reason for their birth. Enter the fruit loop
activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever.....
not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. And atheists think they are so clever at dismissal of anything having
religious origin by their ridicule and fearlessness of the "supernatural" ....
Yes, don't they all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. Of course they are their own judge of everything whatever,
and necessarily according to their belief nothing is sacred so there will be no consequences for error. Having no real code for values or morality,
no real basis for any distinction between what is right and wrong, they then live their lives accordingly. It's tough to correct those who in their
own minds can do no wrong. No conscience, no values, no ethics, ....
no shame or guilt ....
Now there's quite a plan for worldly bliss. But it isn't any path to heaven. There's only one way there.
Definitely it's time for Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU Personal Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA When The Man Comes Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2XJ0mlUnM When The Man Comes Around
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine] |
So you basically want your religion to have a monopoly on marriage? And the justification for this is "my god says so"?
Why are you so upset with other people trying to achieve what you have (the title "marriage")? If you don't like it this much, can't you just ignore
them?
And about the "for centuries it was this and that" argument", for centuries mankind believed that the world is flat, for centuries they believed in
the existence of sea monsters, should I continue? You live in the 21 century (or at least your body is),you can't justify things by saying that they
existed for centuries, and that makes them indisputable. Using that lime of thought you can say "I don't need vaccines, mankind had lived without them
for dozens of thousands of years.
And here we continue to morality, you claim that you need some book to tell you what is wrong and is not? Can't you figure this out yourself? I do not
know about you, but I am a moral person and I do got values and similar things, you know why? Because it is partly in my genetic code and partly
implanted in me by the society. People had lived in social groups for dozens or hundreds of thousands of years. Those who were more social and more
contributing to the group survived better, and those genetic traits were carried and improved by the generations that followed them.
And seriously, how can you claim to be a moral persons while threatening and telling people that they will suffer unimaginable pain and torture for
infinity, just because they don't believe in the same absurd things that you believe in?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by woelen |
In the Netherlands new-coming muslim people are forced to view an "introduction to the Netherlands"' complete with top-less girls playing on the
Dutch beaches, homosexuals meeting in parks in Amsterdam doing their things and so the list goes on.
|
That's nothing.
In Sweden they brainwash the intolerance out of the muslim children. The idealistic extreme socialist government/school system attempts to
fully familiarise young muslim children with homosexuality so they will be fully "tolerant" later in life. One (government funded) preschool in
Stockholm has attempted to eliminate gender specific pronouns, instead referring to the children as "friends" rather than "boys" or "girls." Fairy
tales that "further gender stereotypes" have been replaced with tales of "multicultural" families featuring gay and lesbian couples.
In Denmark the school children are shown "Du Er Ikke Alene", which is basically mild child porn, with stils of two naked young boys humping eachother,
and plenty more little penises showing throughout the film 
The main adult actor in the film was actually later arrested on child pornography charges, and this was during the late 1970's. One had to do
something seriously wrong to be arrested for sexual misconduct at that national time of "care free sexual exploration".
Obviously the muslim parents are not exactly thrilled about this.
What the Bible really says about rape:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the
young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
But perhaps we can steer the topic back to how the competitive exclusion principle may apply to different human subspecies?
| Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland | In ecology, the competitive exclusion principle states that two species competing for the same resources cannot coexist.
(click on the green aarow to be taken back to the previous post in this thread)
|
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Mixell:
I’m convinced that Rosco’s views really are a manifestation of what they call the ‘Culture Wars’. Deeply conservative (and often devout
religious) American feel their worldview is being passed over by younger generations who aren’t so impressed with their fire and brimstone views. So
they try to claw their way back into the limelight, generating far more heat than light. It’s not really working though: whatever the Roscos of the
Bible Belt have in mind for the ‘mentally ill’ (gays) it wouldn’t get more than 10 % of the vote in a poll, less in an actual voting booth.
In less than a generation, a homosexual President stands a good chance of becoming reality (there already is an independent gay candidate for this
race, I believe). Let them blow a gasket at the thought… The rest of us in reality-based communities will watch with bemusement.
| Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | | And here we continue to morality, you claim that you need some book to tell you what is wrong and is not? Can't you figure this out yourself?
|
Oh, com'on now. Everybody knows that w/o their good book they'd all be murderers and rapists! 
Funny though how in the Old Testament these things seem to sanctioned in so many places! Murder, genocide, rape... what have you: it's all there in
their Little Book of Horrors. Charming fellow that G-d before they had to
reinvent him, huh?
Bill Hicks on dinosaur fossils: when he asked a Creationist about these fossils, came the laconic reply; ‘God put them there to test our faith!’
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors. |
I am a husband to a wife and a father to children. I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique
relationship which for millenia has been by definition the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .....
no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
So a hundred million homosexuals and their partners can't be wrong huh to redefine their "committed relationships" as being marriage? It is a
preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with something that is definitely not
marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and established idea and reality of
what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred,
including more probably than not the very definition of the status of the parents whose marriage was the reason for their birth. Enter the fruit loop
activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever.....
not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. And atheists think they are so clever at dismissal of anything having
religious origin by their ridicule and fearlessness of the "supernatural" ....
Yes, don't they all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. Of course they are their own judge of everything whatever,
and necessarily according to their belief nothing is sacred so there will be no consequences for error. Having no real code for values or morality,
no real basis for any distinction between what is right and wrong, they then live their lives accordingly. It's tough to correct those who in their
own minds can do no wrong. No conscience, no values, no ethics, ....
no shame or guilt ....
Now there's quite a plan for worldly bliss. But it isn't any path to heaven. There's only one way there.
Definitely it's time for Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU Personal Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA When The Man Comes Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2XJ0mlUnM When The Man Comes Around
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine] |
So you basically want your religion to have a monopoly on marriage? And the justification for this is "my god says so"?
Why are you so upset with other people trying to achieve what you have (the title "marriage")? If you don't like it this much, can't you just ignore
them? |
The justification that God says so is quite good enough for this subject. No I won't ignore subversives when an established valued institution called
marriage which normal people regard as an absolute, is being devalued to mean a "partnership" consummated by sodomy as the only physically possible
kind of sexual union for homosexuals. This is offensive to the point of being quite totally insane and is simply unacceptable. Next beastiality
couplings will be accorded status as marriage also.....why not? If a person wants to have a committed relationship with their dog, sheep, or horse,
then who is "right" to deny them the status of marriage?
| Quote: |
And about the "for centuries it was this and that" argument", for centuries mankind believed that the world is flat, for centuries they believed in
the existence of sea monsters, should I continue? You live in the 21 century (or at least your body is),you can't justify things by saying that they
existed for centuries, and that makes them indisputable. Using that lime of thought you can say "I don't need vaccines, mankind had lived without them
for dozens of thousands of years. |
Such empty rationalizations fall absolutely flat. That stuff is nonsense. A debate is manufactured about a matter where there actually never was any
bona fide debate, and then a redefining of reality was imposed by subversives and activists as the answer, which creates a larger problem.
| Quote: |
And here we continue to morality, you claim that you need some book to tell you what is wrong and is not? |
"some book" is not exactly an accurate characterization of what is the Holy Bible. | Quote: |
Can't you figure this out yourself? |
No you can't figure it out for yourself. | Quote: | | I do not know about you, but I am a moral person and I do got values and similar things, you know why? |
If
you think homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, then your morality and values are in serious doubt. | Quote: |
Because it is partly in my genetic code and partly implanted in me by the society. People had lived in social groups for dozens or hundreds of
thousands of years. Those who were more social and more contributing to the group survived better, and those genetic traits were carried and improved
by the generations that followed them. |
A herd or pack mentality is not the basis of human morality.
| Quote: |
And seriously, how can you claim to be a moral persons while threatening and telling people that they will suffer unimaginable pain and torture for
infinity, just because they don't believe in the same absurd things that you believe in?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell] |
How about because it is duty to declare the truth. That is something in which all your rationalizations is deficient. All the "child of the
universe" crap is denial of whose children are humankind. There is no secular morality, no code, no ethic, no soul or conscience about it. Anything
genuine in those regards comes from something nobler and higher, namely God. Without that then you are an orphan spirit lost in a lost world where
you plod along trying to figure out knowledge that has been known for millenia and is yours free for the asking. But you are too proud to ask and too
arrogant, overconfident in your own wisdom to be accepting of something just that simple. What is the knowledge of fifty generations of ancients
compared to what any smartass may imagine in a few brief years experience in a "modern" world ......the very idea of having intelligent ancestors who
availed themselves of their own parents and elders wisdom
about "facts of life" should not be difficult to accept. If the ancient wisdom was not urgently important, then why would so much effort be invested
in its recording and preservation as the inheritance of those yet to be born ? The answer is simple ....because the ancestors wished for their
children and their children's children's children to survive. Rejecting that wisdom that is your birthright out of hand is basically squandering your
birthright for nothing, giving you nothing worthwhile to pass on. Your loss and possibly the end of your own lineage is also part of the bargain as
the reward of "natural selection".
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise | | Quote: | | Maybe you mean, though, that by *now* every intelligent person on earth has gotten the memo and realizes that you can't tell anything about someone
from their race. |
Got it in one!
Don't we all know by now that the word 'xenophobia' is fairly self-explanatory . . .
|
But in that case you are simply wrong. I suppose you could rescue your thesis by using a circular definition of stupidity and racism (anyone who is
racist is by definition stupid, according to you). Or you could claim a very narrow definition of racism, i.e. someone is not racist unless they make
very definite assumptions about a specific person of another race without any evidence. But the first is obviously a logical fallacy. As for the
second, it is certainly politically convenient that racism is in practice defined rather elastically. Sometimes (as when someone brings some logic to
bear) it might be that racism is defined in terms so restrictive that indeed, only the irrationally prejudiced qualify. At other times, in more
informal discussion, it instead is used to describe any position that ascribes any differences whatever to different racial groups. Or, still less
consistently, whether a statement is racist depends on the author's intent in making the statement (for example, the statement 'black children do
poorly on math tests compared to white children' might be racist coming from one person, but OK if someone is trying to get increased funding for Head
Start).
Interestingly the debate in the past twenty years or so has moved somewhat, at least in the US. Circa 1990, prior to the wide availability of various
sorts of data on crime, school performance, etc., on the internet, people would consider it racist (and false) if I claimed that black people in the
USA committed violent crimes at higher per-capita rates than whites. That was media stereotyping, or a result of prejudice in the criminal justice
system, or else a result of police racism in pursuing crime. Now that we have instant access to the FBI's uniform crime reporting data, along with the
national crime victimization survey (NCVS) data, such denial is much less frequently encountered. Instead, the point is (usually) conceded and the
question of racism revolves around the beliefs for the reason for this state of affairs. Broadly there are three causes usually discussed, which I
would categorize as oppression/environment, culture, and genetics. To the left, only the first is really acceptable as an explanation for differences
in outcome and behavior. Thus much is made of the difficulties of being black in a white culture, of things like stereotype threat, or higher levels
of lead poisoning among blacks, or simple poverty and lack of access to various beneficial resources. On the mainstream right (and thus in mainstream
American discourse) it is also acceptable to describe shortcomings of certain cultures, e.g. to bemoan a lack of emphasis or interest on academic
achievement.
Beyond the pale however is to ascribe any part of these differences to genetic differences between different racial groups. And yet, the academic
evidence for such differences continues to mount.
In my own experience, then, 'racism' means a belief that there are systematic differences between races, and that these are partly due to genetic
inheritance. Not just in things like skin color, nose shape, and other such attributes (which only a fool would argue with); but in temperament and in
intelligence, indeed in most any human attribute of interest. By this definition, I am a racist. I don't get any kick out of holding beliefs that are
outrageously unpopular: and yet it moves.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine |
when an established valued institution called marriage which normal people regard as an absolute, is being devalued to mean a "partnership"
consummated by sodomy as the only physically possible kind of sexual union for homosexuals.
|
"Normal" people?
"sodomy" is certainly not the only physically possible kind of sexual union for homosexuals. Gays tend to be a highly creative bunch: penis
licking, thigh thrusting, "handjobs", dildos, and of course "rimming" [shudder]
At any rate, it will not be long before your children are forcefully instructed in the details of these alternate forms of sexuality. The USA will be
increasingly dominated by the extreme left in the future, and will head the way of sweden.
Do not try to use the Bible to back up your "traditional" views of marriage. The plain truth is that the Bible simply does not have anything
in it against gay marriage. But no one ever bothers to actually read the scriptures, not even Christian fundamentalists. And please, do not try to
rewrite the original Bible to suit your particular beliefs. You do realise that homosexuality is not specifically mentioned as one of sins of
Sodom and Gomorrah? But this apparently does not deter certain Christians from using the word "sodomy".
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by AndersHoveland]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
Rosco Bodine
Banned
Posts: 6370
Registered: 29-9-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: analytical
|
|
Yes there actually is such a thing as normal. That doesn't include perverts in the gay pride and gay activism "in your face" subversive agendas of
various sorts that are headed for a reckoning. It will be interesting to see who comes out on the losing side of that clash.
Anders there is a solemn warning in the bible about not making false representation concerning its contents like you are doing here. Not an
intelligent choice, but then much of what you have to say isn't representative of intelligence or truth anyway, so no real surprise there.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine]
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7978
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
@AndersHoveland: I know of that Stockholm preschool which wants to wipe out differences in gender. A few weeks ago, in the Netherlands big news paper
articles appeared about this and reactions ranged from mildly enthusiast to very critical. There IS a difference between boys and girls, not only
their bodies, but also in behavior, needs, way of playing, way of thinking, etc. I have 2 daughters and one son and even as little 3 year old children
there are big differences! That kind of political correctness is disgusting in my eyes, I have no other words for it.
I don't know of that Danish film. Given my mediocre Danish, I would translate it like "Jij bent niet de enige/alleen" ("You are not the only one" or
"You are not alone"). Frequently Scandinavian movies also make it into the Netherlands as the prototype of so-called progressive material, but this
one apparently went by unnoticed (at least by me).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best evidence for God's existence is the type of reaction of Blogfast25 God's
word never lets someone untouched, either one becomes very cold or one becomes very heated.
But please, let's get serious again, this thread IS derailing at a high rate again. Are we really so childish that we cannot have a decent discussion
on topics like politics and religion without harsh words and mockery? This is what makes me really sad 
What I said above applies to ALL of us (including myself, when I point fingers to others, even more fingers point to myself).
I hope the tone will change, otherwise we have another proof of not being competent enough to have a good, challenging and mind-opening discussion
which can be read with pleasure, also by people not being members of sciencemadness.
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
That's sooo terrible --- these gays doing stuff that's normally reserved for 'straights'; whatever next?
And do you really think your woman wouldn't enjoy some postillionage, or
rimming?
|
|
|
Mixell
Hazard to Others
Posts: 449
Registered: 27-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | | Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine | | Quote: Originally posted by Mixell | People have the right to do what they please, as long as it does not directly harms another person. Tell me, how exactly same sex marriage harms you?
Or it just doesn't settle with your religious beliefs? If the answer to the last question is yes, then though luck, its your problem, not theirs. And
about the nature of homosexuality, did you know that a lot of animals practice same gender intercourse?
Of-course you have the freedom belief what you want (even fairy tails, for example little red hoodie, although I don't really see the difference
between this and...umm... religion). But you don't have the right to dictate to other people how they should live their life. Oh, and threatening
people that they will go to hell, how typical...
And about the "A problem with the alternative path is the destination." I'm pretty sure there is no destination, more precisely: I did not encounter
any evidence that support its existence, and the source of this idea is not the most reliable around (between reliability and it, there is a huge gap
filled with modern scientific discoveries and just plain logic). So I could say a thing with a similar note to it: If the destination is out of the
equation (and probably is) then only the path matters.
And to another topic: The problem with hatred it is not the existence of the hatred itself, but the actions that some people take in the name of
hatred. If everybody could just hate other people deep inside and that will be all, it would be a lot better world. But unfortunately, people tend to
try and offend/hurt/kill (sometimes even using extreme violence) other people/groups because of their hatred towards them. And that it why we need to
minimize the spread of hatred, or at least keep it behind closed doors. |
I am a husband to a wife and a father to children. I know what a marriage is, as a respectable and legitimate status and an honorable and unique
relationship which for millenia has been by definition the formal committed relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife .....
no others need apply or pretend it is otherwise. Activist judges with their heretical lie and counterfeit can burn in hell with their proponents.
So a hundred million homosexuals and their partners can't be wrong huh to redefine their "committed relationships" as being marriage? It is a
preposterous joke in poor taste which seeks to devalue something legitimately unique and honorable to equate it with something that is definitely not
marriage. It is a counterfeiting and subverting the word marriage and the exclusive generally correctly accepted and established idea and reality of
what it means. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and a lie.
This is more evidence of the "confusion" about which I have spoken already which is a credential of persons for which there is nothing sacred,
including more probably than not the very definition of the status of the parents whose marriage was the reason for their birth. Enter the fruit loop
activists who are seeking legitimacy for what isn't legitimate.
No, people do not "have the right" (fill in the blank) to do as they damn well please (not in any qualified nor unqualified sense)
whatsoever.....
not just because they say so nor because any government on earth says so.
You confuse a "right" with what is a privilege, an entitlement defined and guaranteed by the state. Rights are an endowment from God not a
dispensation from the state or society.
Neither the state nor society invented the sacrament of marriage, or the natural families that resulted from marriages of men and women.
Holy Matrimony, or sacramerntal marriage has for millenia been synonymous with "marriage" in the common use of language.
As for redefining the reality of what is marriage, that is simply another subversive activist agenda to subvert what is good to what is evil and blur
any distinction by deception and rationalizations which are not valid. And atheists think they are so clever at dismissal of anything having
religious origin by their ridicule and fearlessness of the "supernatural" ....
Yes, don't they all have their rap down pat, complete with
all the literature and philosophies which embolden them to live sinful lives fearing no accountability of course, since they don't really believe any
judgement awaits them. Of course they are their own judge of everything whatever,
and necessarily according to their belief nothing is sacred so there will be no consequences for error. Having no real code for values or morality,
no real basis for any distinction between what is right and wrong, they then live their lives accordingly. It's tough to correct those who in their
own minds can do no wrong. No conscience, no values, no ethics, ....
no shame or guilt ....
Now there's quite a plan for worldly bliss. But it isn't any path to heaven. There's only one way there.
Definitely it's time for Johnny Cash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQcNiD0Z3MU Personal Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA When The Man Comes Around
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw2XJ0mlUnM When The Man Comes Around
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Rosco Bodine] |
So you basically want your religion to have a monopoly on marriage? And the justification for this is "my god says so"?
Why are you so upset with other people trying to achieve what you have (the title "marriage")? If you don't like it this much, can't you just ignore
them? |
The justification that God says so is quite good enough for this subject. No I won't ignore subversives when an established valued institution called
marriage which normal people regard as an absolute, is being devalued to mean a "partnership" consummated by sodomy as the only physically possible
kind of sexual union for homosexuals. This is offensive to the point of being quite totally insane and is simply unacceptable. Next beastiality
couplings will be accorded status as marriage also.....why not? If a person wants to have a committed relationship with their dog, sheep, or horse,
then who is "right" to deny them the status of marriage?
| Quote: |
And about the "for centuries it was this and that" argument", for centuries mankind believed that the world is flat, for centuries they believed in
the existence of sea monsters, should I continue? You live in the 21 century (or at least your body is),you can't justify things by saying that they
existed for centuries, and that makes them indisputable. Using that lime of thought you can say "I don't need vaccines, mankind had lived without them
for dozens of thousands of years. |
Such empty rationalizations fall absolutely flat. That stuff is nonsense. A debate is manufactured about a matter where there actually never was any
bona fide debate, and then a redefining of reality was imposed by subversives and activists as the answer, which creates a larger problem.
| Quote: |
And here we continue to morality, you claim that you need some book to tell you what is wrong and is not? |
"some book" is not exactly an accurate characterization of what is the Holy Bible. | Quote: |
Can't you figure this out yourself? |
No you can't figure it out for yourself. | Quote: | | I do not know about you, but I am a moral person and I do got values and similar things, you know why? |
If
you think homosexual unions are equivalent to marriage, then your morality and values are in serious doubt. | Quote: |
Because it is partly in my genetic code and partly implanted in me by the society. People had lived in social groups for dozens or hundreds of
thousands of years. Those who were more social and more contributing to the group survived better, and those genetic traits were carried and improved
by the generations that followed them. |
A herd or pack mentality is not the basis of human morality.
| Quote: |
And seriously, how can you claim to be a moral persons while threatening and telling people that they will suffer unimaginable pain and torture for
infinity, just because they don't believe in the same absurd things that you believe in?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell] |
How about because it is duty to declare the truth. That is something in which all your rationalizations is deficient. All the "child of the
universe" crap is denial of whose children are humankind. There is no secular morality, no code, no ethic, no soul or conscience about it. Anything
genuine in those regards comes from something nobler and higher, namely God. Without that then you are an orphan spirit lost in a lost world where
you plod along trying to figure out knowledge that has been known for millenia and is yours free for the asking. But you are too proud to ask and too
arrogant, overconfident in your own wisdom to be accepting of something just that simple. What is the knowledge of fifty generations of ancients
compared to what any smartass may imagine in a few brief years experience in a "modern" world ......the very idea of having intelligent ancestors who
availed themselves of their own parents and elders wisdom
about "facts of life" should not be difficult to accept. If the ancient wisdom was not urgently important, then why would so much effort be invested
in its recording and preservation as the inheritance of those yet to be born ? The answer is simple ....because the ancestors wished for their
children and their children's children's children to survive. Rejecting that wisdom that is your birthright out of hand is basically squandering your
birthright for nothing, giving you nothing worthwhile to pass on. Your loss and possibly the end of your own lineage is also part of the bargain as
the reward of "natural selection". |
Well, may be "some book" isn't a good characterization of any book. The bible for me is an "assembly of world views, opinions, rules, and fairy tales
of some folks that lived a few centuries/thousands of years ago", that is a pretty accurate description I think.
Rosco, its not up to you to judge the morality and values of other people when you hate a whole group just because some religious belief tells you to.
I too always strive to declare the truth, but sometimes we have yet to discover the truth, so instead I strive to declare what is false.
Oh, and your "ancient wisdom" argument... what ancient wisdom? Of the guys that thought that the earth revolves around the sun? Or that it is the
center of the universe? Or may be the wisdom of the guys that thought that flies evolve from rotten meat?
Also, the fact that there was a lot of effort invested in recording those stuff doesn't mean that they are true or even slightly accurate. People
invented religion and perfected it as a system that got all of the answers (none of which are open to discussion) and it attracted people, the thought
that someone is looking after them, that they got some type of "safety net", that they will go to a better place when they die. And so the
institutions that their sole purpose is to preserve and spread the "word of god" came to be.
You know, a lot of fairy tales are dated centuries or even millenias ago, or the ancient Sumerian creation tale- the Enuma Elish, or the Quran.... By
your logic, all of those books and tales are "ancient wisdom" and are true.
@Woelen: I think that blogfast reaction wasn't due to the mentioning of "god", but due to bullshit (excuse me for my French). I would have had a
similar reaction, nevermind if it was talk about god, homeopathy or various "lucky charms" , spells and everything in between. I hold true only things
that have been proven. And when someone talks about things that don't have proof or have been proven false, and regards them as true (the next step is
him forcibly trying to convince me that they are true) I start arguing and disproving his claims, sometimes more politely, sometimes less.
Imagine if someone tries to convince you that heavy metals are healthy in small doses, and that he enjoys the occasion ingestion of some mercuric
chloride or lead/cadmium salts and advices you to do the same (and tries to convince other people too). How will you react?
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell]
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by Mixell]
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by woelen | @AndersHoveland: I know of that Stockholm preschool which wants to wipe out differences in gender. A few weeks ago, in the Netherlands big news paper
articles appeared about this and reactions ranged from mildly enthusiast to very critical. There IS a difference between boys and girls, not only
their bodies, but also in behavior, needs, way of playing, way of thinking, etc. I have 2 daughters and one son and even as little 3 year old children
there are big differences! That kind of political correctness is disgusting in my eyes, I have no other words for it.
I don't know of that Danish film. Given my mediocre Danish, I would translate it like "Jij bent niet de enige/alleen" ("You are not the only one" or
"You are not alone"). Frequently Scandinavian movies also make it into the Netherlands as the prototype of so-called progressive material, but this
one apparently went by unnoticed (at least by me).
|
Yes, there certainly are important differences between boys and girls, as you said, not only their bodies, but also in behavior, needs, way
of playing, way of thinking, etc.
The differences are not all merely superficial, as so many idealists would have us believe. It should be obvious that different people are
different, and such group differences are not merely confined to gender...
Yes, "You are not alone" is an accurate translation.
Here is a stil from that film:
WARNING TO AMERICANS: you may likely find the picture in the link shocking or "offensive"- do not click on the link if you are going to come back and
complain!
< < link removed on request of Anders, this _may_ lead to legal trouble in some countries > >
do not have any qualms about showing it, because the rest of the world should know exactly what schoolchildren are being shown in danmark and sweden.
And consider that there is much much worse, that AndersHoveland does not feel like taking the liberty of sharing, as it would no doubt offend
notoriously prudent american sensibilities.
[Edited on 31-8-11 by woelen]
I'm not saying let's go kill all the stupid people...I'm just saying lets remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Rosco:
"Next beastiality couplings will be accorded status as marriage also.....why not? If a person wants to have a committed relationship with
their dog, sheep, or horse, then who is "right" to deny them the status of marriage?"
Listen, you prick: animals can't consent, that's why beastiality is illegal and should stay so. What else are you going to compare gays to, huh?
And will you please now tell us what you have in mind with those 'mentally ill' people, you s*ck, cowardly F*CKW*T!!!
Woelen: Mixell is right: Rosco's views on gay's are abhorrent and cause me to heat up. I don't believe in a Theist god. You should do well to distance
yourself from Rosco's abhorrent views.
Yes there are differences between boys and girls and society and culture do everything they can to exaggerate them, mainly for banal commercial gain.
By and large male and female aren't very different.
[Edited on 30-8-2011 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Waiting for spring
|
|
well done
Thank you to everyone who has used this thread to vividly remind me why I disallowed political discussion in the first place.
PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
|
|
|
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
|
Thread Closed
30-8-2011 at 10:17 |
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
