Materialist Derangement Syndrome on Display

_{Barry Arrington

November 18, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have already coined the term “Darwinist Derangement Syndrome.” See here. Closely related to DDS is MDS (“Materialist Derangement Syndrome”), which pathology Mark Frank aptly demonstrates in this exchange:

Barry: Here is a self-evident moral truth: “It is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure.”

Mark Frank:

Usually you define self-evident as leading to absurdity. What kind of absurdity results from holding it is not evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

(We must have held this debate over 100 times on UD by now – but I never saw an answer to this).

Mark keeps asking over and over for someone to demonstrate to him why a self-evident truth is true, when he has been told over and over again that self-evident truths cannot be demonstrated – self-evident principles are not conclusions that one reasons to; they are premises upon which all reasoning is based.

Mark, maybe you will finally get it if you ponder these questions. What kind of absurdity would result from denying that:

2+2=4

That a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense

That the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees

That you are conscious

That a finite whole is greater than or equal to any of its parts

BTW, you also suggest that William Lane Craig would deny that it is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure. This statement is outrageously false. Do you have no shame sir?

Alan Fox comes in a close second with this gem of MDS:

Comment 57 posted at 3:14: “Moral absolutes, there ain’t!”

Comment 58 posted at 3:20: “all [people] deserved the universal right to life.”

Psychologists talk about the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting beliefs. People cope with cognitive dissonance by engaging in dissonance reduction. Alan appears to be able to deny a concept and then affirm it six minutes later. His dissonance reduction coping strategies must be a marvel to behold. Alternatively, Alan may well be a closet ID proponent shilling as a materialist. That would make sense.

Comments

MF: The point, c 50 BC where after decades of civil war among corrupt elites the Roman republic was forced to appoint a dictator, marks a pivotal point of decline. As, was noted by leading Romans at the time. As you will also recall, the first emperor was assassinated and a high proportion of his successors died violently. The dictatorship was able to continue expanding for a while (but by 9 AD was decisively checked by German barbarians, losing a significant slice of its strategic reserve, permanent defensive followed), but even that is missing the key mark. For, PAGAN Rome was by that fact ever increasingly in rebellion against the evident Creator and morality. Across time that got worse and worse especially among elites until the civil wars led to dictatorship. In that whole process the defiance of core morality was evident, and the peak of the iceberg was the rise of homosexualism among elites, Recall, it was said of JC that he was a man to every woman and a woman to every man. Octavian tried to restore morals and family and failed, his own daughter severely disappointing him. By the time we get to Nero, the time of the cited analysis, we ave a demonic madman who was as out of control sexually as in any other way. And it went steadily downhill from there. Notice, what I noted on Jupiter already, and I recall that it has been said that of the first sixteen Roman Emperors fifteen were involved in homosexuality. Rampant homosexuality by itself is not solely responsible for Rome's decline but is emblematic of it. It is a sign of serious breakdown of family, and its widespread social acceptance is an accelerant of the flames of disorder in the culture. By the time a culture becomes accepting of such behaviour, it is well on the way to self-ruin, and it is a marker of a watershed point beyond which return is increasingly hard. In the Roman case, the entire period of the principate was already one of breakdown and resort to dictatorship to try to restore order in some semblance. Which itself then accelerated the decline as worse and worse men became dictator. In our civilisation, the propensity to create new forms of evil is manifest, we are inventing the novelty of counterfeit marriage, to be backed up by hijacked civil rights law. This means that, if the radicals have their way, increasingly, traditional ethics will be made ILLEGAL (under false colours of Law) a process that is already out the starting gates in especially the UK. Across time, good and decent, competent men will be increasingly disaffected, the lack of disciplined, well trained dedicated workers and defenders of the civil peace will begin to tell, and between bad decisions and want of the economic tax base and raw manpower to stand in the lines, we will increasingly collapse. In that gap, we already see IslamIST settlements advancing in France and Germany. And you had better believe that we are seeing a settlement-jihad process. Captured documents affirm that. I have a retained copy of IslamIST documents that envision global conquest across this century. I think it will fail, but that we are in for a wild and bloody ride. One that as of this weekend -- a Munich scale blunder -- is very likely to include nuclear bombardment. In the case of Rome, the process took longer but from AD 9 on -- the first strategically decisive defeat -- Rome's doom was certain. Not least, the man who defeated them had formerly been a Roman auxiliary. From that to the day when a German leader in the largely Germanic Roman Army would simply decide to end the circus in 476 AD is a more or less straight line. Not for nothing did Machiavelli rail against mercenaries! I strongly suggest that you read Paul's analysis with fresh eyes, noticing how he rebukes rebellion against that which is evident as what initiates and accelerates the down spiral to sexual and general chaos and collapse. In no reasonable interpretation, whether of scripture or of the values guiding treatment of equals in nature can one find approval of aggressive war, murder and grand theft of defeated states. To even suggest such (which you did) is a travesty, and is absurd. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

KF #172 I do not see how your comment in any way addresses mine. It doesn't matter when you date the decline of Rome. StephenB clearly puts the decline down to no longer accepting the natural moral law. From which it follows that Rome did accept the natural moral law before. So is the NML compatible with the horrors of early Rome?Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

MF: Rome's steady expansion was broken c 9 AD when Octavian lost three legions (of was it fourteen) in the German wilderness. That was about the time when Jesus, a 12 year old, impressed his elders in the Temple. Thereafter it hesitated then under Hadrian went on the long term strategic defensive, with the Rhine, the Danube and the Arabian deserts the key limits. At this time, the Christian faith was a persecuted minority. This I noted on and repeated above. FYI, the point of Paul's analysis in AD 57 is just the opposite: our hearts are instinctively engraved with core morality, but we stubbornly rebel in too many cases, leading to the moral decline the apostle highlighted. Your attempt to blame the natural moral law for the sins of Rome and its successors, fails. Let us remind ourselves of what that core law teaches, through Locke's citation of "the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker", in a context where he laid the foundations for modern liberty and democracy, his 2nd essay on civil govt ch 2:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
By contrast, let us hear instead from you a grounding IS of your worldview -- evolutionary materialism last I gathered -- that is able to properly bear the weight of OUGHT. Perhaps, that can be done by giving us an answer to what has again been cited from Dr Dawkins. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

F/N: Let us see if the advocates of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller ideologies will at length seriously address the amorality declaration put forth by Dawkins, as repeatedly cited. Absent a sober and cogent answer, we can hold appeals to rights, right, the deplorable nature of evils they don't like etc as statements on tastes and preferences at best, or unacknowledged borrowings from a worldview that can ground morality, or even in some cases attempts to manipulate us based on our sensibilities. KF PS: On the creation of a counterfeit of marriage pushed under the name of the moral sentiment "equality," Lesbian activist Masha Gessen's statement in Australia should give pause -- note the "video." Let me cite some summary points:
Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;
--> “Gay marriage is a lie.” --> “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.” --> “It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:
“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”

Where also Girgit, George and Anderson observe in a very important Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy paper:
[T]he current debate is precisely over whether it is possible for the kind of union that has marriage’s essential fea?tures to exist between two people of the same sex. Revisionists do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in our law 10 and replace it with the revisionist [--> i.e. homosexualised] conception . . . ----------
F/N 10: Throughout history, no society’s laws have explicitly forbidden gay mar?riage. They have not explicitly forbidden it because, until recently, it has not been thought possible . . . [T]raditional marriage laws were not devised to oppress those with same?sex attractions. The comparison [to racist anti-miscegenation laws that forbade inter-racial marriages] is offensive, and puzzling to many—not least to the nearly two?thirds of black vot?ers who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight. See Cara Mia DiMassa & Jessica Garrison, Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Prop. 8, L.A. TIMES, Nov. 8, 2008, at A1.
[Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol 34, No. 1, p. 250 of 245 - 287.]
PPS: Let us therefore also remember Plato's warning in The Laws Bk 10, speaking of evolutionary materialism-driven advocates:
[[Thus, the evolutionary materialism-influenced (cf, the linked) teachers and avant garde hold] that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [ --> Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of radically relativist amorality that opens the door to nihilism], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
PPPS: So, as I have been repeatedly noting this weekend (e.g. cf here and most recently here), if we refuse to heed the lessons and warnings of history, we are condemned to repeat or echo its worst chapters.kairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

StephenB #130 (explaining the fall of Rome)
Homosexuality is a cause, but not the first cause. It goes like this: Rejection of the natural moral law, followed by homosexuality and the deterioration of the family, followed by a decline in the reproductive replacement rate.
So presumably during the 600 years when Rome was steadily expanding it accepted the natural moral law. This was a society that accepted slavery, the horrors of the circuses, appalling treatment of conquered peoples, and religious persecution – notably the Jews. Does the NLM condone these? Mark Frank_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

AF @ 155:
I’m still not sure what you mean.
No biggie.jstanley01_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 159
“In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. Strong families headed by faithful spouses made for bold, prosperous societies. But not one culture survived more than three generations after turning sexually permissive. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.”
Sounds like a great argument in favour of gay marriage.CLAVDIVS_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Let us refuse to reward derailing by allowing it to succeed. Here, as again cited at 150, is the telling admission of the amorality and moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers, by no less than Dr Clinton Richard Dawkins, dean of the new atheists here writing in Sci Am, Aug 1995:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Unless and until the evolutionary materialists and their fellow travellers can provide a worldview grounding IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT, we for good reason have to view their ideological system -- never mind the lab coats used to convey an unwarranted credibility, Lewontinian a priori materialist question begging is at work even in the science -- as absurd, delusional and destructively corrupt. KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: To correct the ongoing toxic distractor rhetorical pattern requires some further response, to expose what is going on. Then, let us pull together to bring focus back to the pivotal matter so many are so patently desperate not to address: foundations of morality and what happens when a culture has that foundation undermined by evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers. FWIW, I state my theme up front: homosexualisation of a culture -- and here I target an extremist ideology, not those struggling with strange, addictive attractions that are often unwelcome -- is a part of a much wider disintegration, that undermines the pivotal foundational institution of sound society, the stable family based on lifelong marriages in accord with Creation Order manifest in the nature of man and woman. First, let me remind of my comment on what went down with Rome, from 128 above:
BTW, by the time Rome became an Empire between the time of Julius Caesar and Octavian aka Augustus, that resort to permanent essentially unlimited dictatorship — after decades of civil war and chaos — was already the admission of societal failure. All of which were BC. [Cf here the OT debate over a king and the prophetic view that this was both a judgement of consequences and a resort to dictatorship to provide order and a centre of military strength after anarchy and chaos, with the particular note on oppressive taxes and forced labour.] The Christian faith grew to significance as a despised minority and counter-culture view in the midst of a gradually decaying civilisation under dictatorship. One that had suffered an ultimately decisive defeat and destruction of three legions at the hands of German barbarians in was it AD 9 — roughly the time when Jesus impressed the Temple elites as a boy of twelve — that prevented it from shortening frontier lines by advancing to better river lines. And recall, it nearly collapsed in the 200?s, already. Even as late as the 400?s Augustine’s City of God was written in reply to the blame the Christians for disaster mentality, after a sacking of Rome. And the deposing of the remaining Emperor in the West by a Germanic chieftain and officer in 476 was just a part of the onward process
In short, the blame the Christians as scapegoats game is longstanding and ill-informed. For a telling contemporary analysis that lays out the pattern of social breakdown Paul's letter to Rome c 57 AD is apt. To be seen here as in the main an informed worldviews and cultural consequences analysis of Rome in the days when things were running good under Nero and his tutors Seneca and Burrus, before he went utterly demonically mad:
Rom 1:19 . . . what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [a --> there is adequate, even compelling evidence that points to the reality of God and his moral government leading to duty to and under him, but men willfully suppress the unwelcome truth] 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [b --> such resentful ingratitude and self will leads to darkened will, emotions and thinking . . . often portrayed as enlightenment. Professing to be enlightened and wise, men in willful rebellion against that which is evident from the world around and the inner conscious world within become utterly en-darkened, living in a Plato's Cave of clever shadow-shows substituting for and counterfeiting evident reality.] 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. [ c --> whether idols in pagan temples surrounded by scandalous legends or images in museums surrounded by science ideologically controlled by Lewontinian-Saganian a priori materialism, makes little difference. c.1 --> And here, we should not forget Ganymede. The moon of Jupiter has that name for a reason -- the chief Greco-Roman god was portrayed as taking a boy as a target of his own out of control lusts that so often were portrayed as provoking his wife. Indeed, the Milky Way itself was said to be milk spewing from her breast as she snatched away yet another love child from a liason with a mortal girl, that Jupiter was attempting to so make immortal. With a culture shaped by such, what Paul is critiquing is all too plainly what we should expect.] 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [d --> turning one's back willfully on the source of moral light leads to corruption of behaviour, with particular reference to sexual behaviour, as the power of human sexuality is necessarily strong to motivate the lifelong heterosexual bond at the core of family.] 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. [e --> In a judgement of consequences in a morally ordered world, turning from the source of sound order undermines all limits, leading to addiction to passions out of control . . . to the extent of even twisting nature out of its obvious proper path.] For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. [f --> Thus, we find a rising tide of the twisting of sexual behaviour, attitudes and passions into forms that run against nature. g --> And BTW, the my genes made me do it talking point has been soberly and cogently answered, cf. as a useful summary, here. One should at least read the summary chapter.] 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. [h --> the choice of endarkenment and false light leads to a breaking down of the intellectual culture and to chaos, inviting dictatorship to restore order, only to see the dictators increasingly corrupt also, with Nero as emerging exhibit A. Gibbon I think summed up as: the stories of the gods were to the common people equally true, to the philosophers equally false, and to the politicians equally useful.] 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. [i --> the chaos that leads to dictatorship in a desperate move to restore order. By 50 BC Rome reached that threshold, and after the assassination by the senators, civil war again broke out. Octavian was seen as a political messiah, and of course the Imperial cult began. So by the time of Jesus' birth, the breakdown was already well advanced and in further progress. j --> With that sort of example from the top the pattern of the history is obvious, just fill in details. k --> Where, by the time we get to Nero, it was simply irretrievable.] 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [ESV] l --> And that stage, of demanding approval of evil, is where we have now again reached.
Remember, all opf this was analysed while it was already in progress, c 57 AD. The difference, I think is that in an era of mass rapid communication, technology and greater wealth and power in the hands of the corrupt than ever before, the pace of the trends has sharply accelerated. History, in short, is playing out in decades now what once would have taken generations or centuries. So, let me now turn to what is happening with family as the pivotal point in cultural disintegration, adapting 116 above as was also again cited by me in 128 and as was picked up by SB but has -- predictably -- been studiously ignored by those whose agenda, patently, is to put darkness for light. Remember, these folks as shown and confessed above, will not even read unless they have to, will snip and snipe out of context if they can get away with it, and will refuse to respond to corrective well researched facts. Back to the family breakdown issue, based on 116:
1 --> AF et al will not acknowledge that human sexuality has a naturally evident Creation Order anchored purpose. 2 --> That naturally evident purpose, however, is deeply connected to the formation and stability of families as the foundational institution of society. 3 --> where, family is an institution that first and foremost requires longstanding bonded heterosexual -- the biological reproducing unit -- commitment [as in, easy and widespread divorce is another very worrying sign], 4 --> To make that work requires sacrifice and unselfish service [as in porn and the culture of self indulgence it reflects and accelerates is a warning sign] 5 --> all of these being necessary and widespread (indeed, overwhelmingly dominant) in a community if it is to thrive and effectively nurture the next generation [as in, watch out] . . . 6 --> Where, we must especially properly raise young men who must in each generation be tamed from becoming wolf packs preying on society and its members from within or without, creating the chaos that demands tyranny as preferable to anarchy, triggering ruin on both horns of that dilemma. 7 --> Where JS01 promptly provided an example in point, the novel horror of packs of youngsters seeking out people to try to surprise and knock out with one sucker punch, filming to upload to social networking sites where they boast of their prowess. 8 --> A telling example that AF has willfully dodged. 9 --> It seems, further, that AF dismisses the insight that evil is best understood in light of its being:
the perversion, frustration and privation of the good from its proper, often patent, purpose.
10 --> So, with signs of chaos all around and the utter destabilisation of the foundational institution of social survival, he wishes to play at selective hyperskepticism in part driven by the influence of amoral ideologies that open the door to nihilism. 11 --> But beyond a certain point, the good and decent will be so disaffected that few will be willing to stand in the gap and lay reputation or life and limb on the line to defend it and uphold justice . . . 12 --> leading to a predominance of corrupt and cynical misrule, courts of injustice and abusive and destructive policing and military forces little better than organised gangs of predators and warlords running little more than protection rackets. Where of course, 13 --> that which he would demand approval of is one of the cluster of signs and accelerants of the raging fire that is even now burning down our civilisation — a second time around. (He seems to have forgotten the fate of pagan civilisation and doubtless thinks this diagnosis and warning can be simply brushed aside as of no account, never mind Nero and co, the primary targets of the critique in Rom 1.)
So, homosexualist attempted destruction of creation order rooted marriage and family is just the tip of an iceberg that our civilisation is suffering a fatal collision with. Widespread pornography and the divorce-remarriage and sexual immorality games are equally at fault. Not to mention the widespread, deeply corrupting influence of indelible mass blood-guilt with half a generation having been slaughtered in the womb since the 1970's, 55 million and counting just in the United States, with abortions having outnumbered live births in some jurisdictions. In that context, it is no accident that a first point of attack by the hate site circle that targets UD was to pick up a blog post elsewhere where I exposed shocking porn statistics, and to use that as an occasion of cyber vandalism. Where, surprise --NOT, one of those involved operated a photo site on seduction photography that featured thinly veiled nudity of a girl estimated by a Deputy Commissioner of Police here to be 14 - 16 years of age. We need to face some very unwelcome and painful, even repulsive facts, concerns and issues, if we are to truly discern the sick signs of an increasingly en-darkened and shameless time hell-bent on cultural suicide. Isaiah, Prince of Prophets is stingingly apt:
Isa 5:18 Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, 19 who say: “Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!” 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
Let us wake up and turn back, even at the brink of the abyss. For, God is merciful. (Which we most need precisely when we least deserve it.) KFkairosfocus_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

My opinion is we shouldn't be deciding what other people should like and dislike. We are not their creators.coldcoffee_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

...their [gays] behavior, if normalized, will destroy our society just as it has destroyed others.
On the "evidence" you have so far presented, that would be in an imaginary way. Your claim that the Roman Empire imploded due to homosexual activity is so ridiculous, I suspect Poe's law should be invoked.Alan Fox_{November 25, 2013
November
11
Nov
25
25
2013
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Daniel King @161 5for @ 162, I have no idea what either of you are talking about. Do you have anything of substance to add?StephenB_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "I don’t think gays should be oppressed. I just think it is important to point out that their behavior, if normalized, will destroy our society just as it has destroyed others." That statement is hilarious in a very sad way.5for_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB said:
I don’t think gays should be oppressed. I just think it is important to point out that their behavior, if normalized, will destroy our society just as it has destroyed others.
Don't worry, we heterosexuals have no interest in such behavior. And we love and enjoy our children!Daniel King_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

F/N: More on the so-called knockout game, yet another sign of disintegration and the rise of wolf-packs as highlighted, mocked and substantiated then studiously ignored by AF. In a context where the same just confirmed that he prefers the PC spin to the inconveniently more complex and less manipulable results of follow up investigations. Even, when they come from something as reliably liberal/progressivist as the Guardian. KFkairosfocus_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox
Assuming for the sake of argument Jimenez’ account is correct, so what? Does this establish your right to oppress gay people in general? I think not. You’ll need to come up with manyer* examples than just this one.
I don't think gays should be oppressed. I just think it is important to point out that their behavior, if normalized, will destroy our society just as it has destroyed others. “In the 1930s, British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 cultures that stretched across 5,000 years. He found, without exception, when they restricted sex to marriage, they thrived. Strong families headed by faithful spouses made for bold, prosperous societies. But not one culture survived more than three generations after turning sexually permissive. Noted Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found no culture surviving once it ceased to support marriage and monogamy. None.” What you need to understand, Alan, is that I am going after the gay movement, not individual homosexuals who happen to find themselves being attracted to members of the same sex. Here is the key point. In analyzing their strategies, we have found that gay zealots are about destroying the family first and advancing the gay agenda second. There is no other way they can legitimize their behavior or make it appear normal.StephenB_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

I’ll be easy on you this time since you had no way of knowing.
Not true. I managed to google.
Matthew Shepherd was murdered for agreeing to trade methamphetamines for sex. One of the murderers, Aaron McKinney, was a bisexual and a former lover. It wasn’t a hate crime. Read Stephen Jimenez’s “The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard,” Jimenez, by the way. is gay.
Assuming for the sake of argument Jimenez' account is correct, so what? Does this establish your right to oppress gay people in general? I think not. You'll need to come up with manyer* examples than just this one. *If there's fewer, there has to be manyer, right?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

[Shepherd case] Alan Fox
Hmm. Gay young man horrifically and casually murdered. Sure makes the case against the gay community. What is the matter with you people?
I'll be easy on you this time since you had no way of knowing. Matthew Shepherd was murdered for agreeing to trade methamphetamines for sex. One of the murderers, Aaron McKinney, was a bisexual and a former lover. It wasn't a hate crime. Read Stephen Jimenez’s “The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard,” Jimenez, by the way. is gay.StephenB_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Oops XenophonAlan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

jstanley:
My question @ 146 isn’t evolutionary, but cultural, asked in light of your appeal to ancient Greek culture that I cited.

What I’d like to learn about, in light of the tack that our society has decided upon, is any historical culture that has counted homosexual sex as a basis for marriage.

It's a simple question
Not that simple. Reading it as if you missed out a "there", it becomes "is [there] any historical culture that has counted homosexual sex as a basis for marriage?" I'm still not sure what you mean. In my example from Classical Greece, homosexuality seemed to be a casual norm in campaigning circumstances, if the accounts that survive are accurate. Herodotus and Xenephon both refer to the practice in a matter-of-fact way.Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

AF: You continue to dodge inconvenient facts and twist circumstances. Whether on the source and substance of Dawkins' words or on Shepard, where I have gone to the point of giving you links (including the Guardian) to better inform yourself. The message you are inadvertently sending is all too plain. KF PS: FYI, your little game of substituting a different source and pretending that I am in error fails. I did in fact use the article in Sci Am as cited. But of course, while trying to suggest I have my source wrong, you fail to address the pivotal substance. Revealing.kairosfocus_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

What are you asking me, Jeff? I have a hard time believing homosexuality is heritable. It doesn’t make sense in evolutionary terms.
Evidently I jumped to a conclusion about your opinions, since clearly, "the consensus among scientists is that same-sex preference is rooted in our biology" (paragraph 8), but yours isn't. Sorry about that. My question @ 146 isn't evolutionary, but cultural, asked in light of your appeal to ancient Greek culture that I cited. It's a simple question.jstanley01_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

As a point of information, GEM, the Dawkins quote is from his book "River Out of Eden". Can I ask what you think of the Darwin Trust?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

I think you should be aware there have been some serious second thoughts on the case that paint a far more complex picture involving a drugs culture and indications of earlier sexual involvement with one of his killers.
Are you entering a plea of mitigation for the murderers of Matthew Shepard? Because?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

AF: And meanwhile you studiously continue to ignore the pivotal admission by Dr Dawkins in Sci Am, Aug 1995:
Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This lesson is one of the hardest for humans to learn. We cannot accept that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous: indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose [--> It escapes Dr Dawkins that we may have good reason for refusing this implication of his favoured ideological evolutionary materialism] . . . . In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference [--> As in open admission of utter amorality that opens the door to nihilism] . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [“God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]
Multiply that by the sort of behaviour you just again indulged, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are playing rhetorical manipulation games on moral sensibilities, diverting attention from the underlying amorality that would imply that might and manipulation make 'right.' For just one instance, can you let us know the basis -- within your worldview [which seems to be a fellow traveller of evolutionary materialism] -- on which you wish to project the impression that murder is wrong, as a binding principle? And if you fail such, tell us how you avoid the conclusion that your scheme boils down to might and manipulation make 'right.' Where would that lead our civilisation? KFkairosfocus_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

AF; You treated me improperly by snipping and sniping, then promptly proceeded to do the same again. I think you should be aware there have been some serious second thoughts on the case that paint a far more complex picture involving a drugs culture and indications of earlier sexual involvement with one of his killers. I suggest you need to actually investigate before assuming and sniping away dismissively. Start with this Guardian report, and this NY Post one. Then consider why two cases about the same time, Jesse Dirkhising [I will not give details], and a woman murdered for objecting on principle to homosexuality, did not receive the same headlining. The situation is far more complex than you imagine. KFkairosfocus_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

What are you asking me, Jeff? I have a hard time believing homosexuality is heritable. It doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms.Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

sorry... "is there any known historical culture..." blah, blah, blah.jstanley01_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox (emphases added):
But didn’t the Greeks have a very relaxed attitude to homosexuality. It was indulged as an abberation of youth. A sowing of wild oats (and no unfortunate consequences) before settling down to manhood, marriage and family?
Hmm. You might want to check. Doesn't the Talking Points Memo say, "Stick to, 'It's genetic'"? What I'd like to learn about, in light of the tack that our society has decided upon, is any historical culture that has counted homosexual sex as a basis for marriage. TIA.jstanley01_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

KF Can I ask what you think of the Darwin Trust?Alan Fox_{November 24, 2013
November
11
Nov
24
24
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply