Saturday, December 14, 2013

Somebody get a ruler. A very small ruler.

It seems like Vox has to post about his numbers and how they compare with Scalzi's on at least a monthly basis. Only the most insecure of assholes would need to do this. One can't help but wonder when he's gonna whip out his pecker and demand a measurement.

The truth is that John Scalzi is more influential, more liked, more accomplished author than Vox Day regardless of website traffic. Hate groups have less options on the internet to feel welcome than do normal folks like fans of Scalzi. So of course these hate-mongers are going to flock to sites like Vox Popoli and Alpha Game. Scalzi's fans have a near-limitless online world to surf (because they live in reality) so Scalzi's got a lot more competition than Vox when it comes to demographics.

Anyway, none of that matters. The point is that Vox Day and his sheep are living in a bubble with their heads up their asses. They are the one bad apple hanging from a fruitful tree that is SF/F.

102 comments:

  1. I've noticed a number of patterns with Vox. Other than his continual obsession with Scalzi, if I had to apply what I know about psychology, Vox behaves in a manner consistent either with a serial killer of the sort with a slut/madonna complex, or else a highly repressed homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The point is that Vox Day and his sheep are living in a bubble with their heads up their asses.-Pox

    This statement could well be correct. Even if it an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Third possibility: Vox can't or doesn't want to satisfy a woman in bed, so is scared shitless of a woman having the option of leaving him and finding someone who can or will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. coughspacebunnycough

      Delete
    2. Ann, You don't know that. perhaps he couldn't satisfy you because you don't like him. But I imagine there are plenty of women who like him.

      Delete
    3. Apollo wrote: **Ann, You don't know that. perhaps he couldn't satisfy you because you don't like him. But I imagine there are plenty of women who like him.**

      I know a lot about human psychology, Apollo. As for women liking Vox, Charles Manson has plenty of groupies. The fact that one or more women may like a man cannot be construed to mean that that man has very many good qualities.

      Delete
  4. Stg58/Animal MotherDecember 17, 2013 at 3:51 AM

    Ann Morgan,

    Have you formally notified Vox of your refusal to have sex with him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you refuse to have sex with him?

      Delete
    2. I also, of course, refuse to have sex with Vox, as I have already notified Kratman, whose wife thanks me in advance for my consideration and thoughtful approach to the situation.

      Delete
    3. I don't need to waste my time informing Vox of my lack of interest in him, and it's irrelevent anyways. Vox would not have the slightest sexual interest in any woman who had 3 digits in her IQ. Which make his various statements regarding that such women would have more children hypocritical, you can't have an intelligent woman as the mother of your children when you have as many objections to the personalities of such women as Vox has. Claiming that you do is like claiming that you wish it would rain, but objecting to anything getting wet.

      Delete
    4. "I don't need to waste my time informing Vox of my lack of interest in him, and it's irrelevent anyways." Ann of 160

      So you wouldn't shut up on the VP sight, and now you hang here, but you have no interest? Wow. You have issues, Ann.

      Delete
    5. So you wouldn't shut up on the VP sight, and now you hang here, but you have no interest? Wow. You have issues, Ann.

      Here's a mirror, idiot.

      Delete
    6. Stg58/Animal MotherDecember 18, 2013 at 6:06 AM

      Ann Morgan, are you saying Vox's wife is stupid? How misogynist of you. Her Facebook posts are quite intelligent and thoughtful.

      Delete
    7. Scoutmaster B wrote: **So you wouldn't shut up on the VP sight, and now you hang here, but you have no interest? Wow. You have issues, Ann.**

      First of all, the word would be spelled 'site'. 'Sight' refers to the ability of your eyes. Secondly, you apparently not only lack the ability to spell, but the ability to parse a sentence, so I will clarify my statement for you.

      When I make the statement: **"I don't need to waste my time informing Vox of my lack of interest in him**, what that actually means, in the context of the previous conversation, is: **"I don't need to waste my time informing Vox of my lack of interest SEXUAL in him,**

      There is a difference between not being sexually interested in something, and not being interested in it at all. I'm interested in any number of people and objects, both in a positive and negative way, that I have no desire to have sex with.

      Delete
    8. Animal Mother wrote: **Ann Morgan, are you saying Vox's wife is stupid? How misogynist of you. Her Facebook posts are quite intelligent and thoughtful.**

      First of all, I've no familiarity with Vox's wife or her blog. If it resembles Vox's, I would not call that 'intelligent'. Secondly, stating that Vox would not be sexually interested in an intelligent woman is not a misogynist statement, as it is a statement about Vox, and the particular women he would be interested in, not about women in general.

      One would hope that Vox's wife at least knows more about dairy farming than her husband apparently does, but that would be no great accomplishment.

      Delete
  5. How much does Vox pay you guys to write this spoof blog? Is Ann Morgan one of the ilk running a sock puppet? This is too funny. Unreal, even. I presume you're all getting paid since you spend this much time thinking about Beale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much does Vox pay you guys to write this spoof blog? Is Ann Morgan one of the ilk running a sock puppet?

      Oh, there are several sock puppets on Dipshit's blog. I could name names...

      What's hilarious is he hasn't noticed the mockery yet - too subtle for him, I guess.

      Delete
    2. You're spending time making fake accounts to dishonestly agree with him in order to "mock" him? How do you have this time and energy? Why is this something you brag about?

      Delete
    3. And it bears mentioning that subtlety seems to be something that evades you, don't pat yourself on the back to hard.

      Delete
  6. It's funny how when Scalzi initially had more traffic, the manboob crowd would bray endlessly about it, and now the tables have turned, traffic is unimportant, or it's the "wrong kind" of traffic (read Stormfront)...

    ReplyDelete
  7. More stupidity from Dipshit today...

    Do these global warming idiots ever go outside? When record lows are being set all over the world and every climate model they've ever cited has been spectacularly wrong, you would think that they would at least consider the possibility that their assumptions are incorrect.

    Well, let's see...

    http://www.ibtimes.com/november-2013-warmest-month-record-average-global-temperature-was-highest-records-began-1514310

    -----
    Start planning your summer travel arrangements now, because according to data released Tuesday, Earth had its warmest November on record since 1891 – the year scientists began collecting temperature data.

    The report, released by the National Climate Data Center, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that last month marked the 37th consecutive November with an average global temperature above the 20th-century average. It was also the 345th consecutive month with an average temperature higher than the 20th- century average.
    [...]
    For those of us in the U.S., the news that November was Earth’s warmest month on record may come as a surprise, given that November was actually a relatively cold month for Americans. Temperatures across the country fell below the 20th-century average.

    “That shouldn’t be a surprise for the Americans who braved a chilly Thanksgiving weekend, or for the Midwesterners who suffered through biting cold and heavy snow earlier this month,” Time noted. “And if the cold weather continues … something even more unusual could happen: for the first time in 20 years, the U.S. may have more daily record lows over the course of a calendar year than daily record highs.”

    Although there were pockets of chilly weather across the globe, considering the planet as a whole, global temperatures continue to climb. According to a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released Dec. 12, regional extremes continued this year over much of Eurasia and Alaska.
    ------

    Why, it's almost as if Dipshit didn;t have a clue about how science was actually done...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you know how science is done? If so, are you a scientist?

      Delete
    2. I know enough not to make observations about a global condition based on solely on what the weather looks like outside my window, Apollo.

      YMMV.

      Delete
    3. Phoenician, I have serious doubts a number of things regarding global warming, including whether it is occuring, whether it is manmade, whether it is even a bad thing, or whether the proposed action (everyone except a certain political elite needs to drastically lower their lifestyle) is a good idea.

      The main goal really seems to be to find an excuse to get people (except for a tiny political elite) to accept the proposed solution of drastically reducing their lifestyles. This makes me highly dubious about everything else said in regards to global warming.

      Delete
  8. And yet more stupidity from Dipshit -

    On "Pajaymaboy"

    Of course, this ad for Obamacare might look astonishingly asinine, but don't be fooled. In truth, it is just one more brilliant meisterspiel by the greatest genius in the history of American politics and that is exactly what he wants you to think!

    Teeny tiny itsy bitsy minor point - the ad was put out by a group unaffiliated with the government and Obama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stg58/Animal MotherDecember 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM

      Organizing for America and Barackobama.com are not affiliated with Barack Obama? That's interesting.

      Delete
    2. God, you're stupid.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/conservatives-are-getting-trolled-by-pajama-boy.html

      -----
      A few days ago, Organizing for Action unleashed a new ad for Obamacare, featuring a slender young man in hipster glasses drinking a hot beverage in what looks like a plaid onesie.
      -----

      and from their FAQ

      ----
      Is OFA involved in elections or supporting candidates who share a commitment?
      No. Neither OFA nor its chapters are involved in elections or partisan political activity. Its exclusive purpose is public policy advocacy and development, and in particular, both enactment of the agenda a majority of Americans voted for in 2012 and the identification and advancement of other goals for progressive change at the state and local level.
      Does OFA lobby for these changes?
      No. OFA does not directly lobby elected officials on behalf of the policies it supports, nor will it hire federal lobbyists to do so. OFA is an advocacy organization that promotes these programs throughout the nation and mobilizes citizens to speak out for their adoption and implementation.
      Is OFA affiliated in any way with the federal or any other government, or funded with taxpayer dollars?
      No. OFA is a grassroots funded organization. All funding is provided by voluntary donations from OFA supporters.
      Does President Obama support the establishment and activities of OFA?
      OFA is advocating for the agenda that a majority of American people voted for in 2012. OFA also works with other civic organizations that are similarly committed to the successful enactment of this agenda.
      Do the organizations working closely with or in alliance with OFA include the Democratic Party?
      No. OFA is not a partisan political organization and does not engage in electoral activity with any partisan political organization. It welcomes Democrats, Republicans, and independents to support its work, and its advocacy is directed to all Americans, without regard to party or other political affiliations.
      What is the relationship of OFA and Obama for America?
      Obama for America was the re-election committee of the President while Organizing for Action is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization not involved in electoral activity. The organizations are separate and established for different purposes. Organizing for Action leases some and bought some digital assets from the remaining Obama for America re-election effort solely for the purpose of issue advocacy work.
      -----

      Delete
    3. Is your measurement if intellect hinge upon the ability to find something on the internet and then copy/paste on the comments in another blog?

      Delete
    4. Stg58/Animal MotherDecember 22, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      Phoenician,

      What about Barackobama.com? That's the website on the pajamaboy ad. Is that affiliated with Obama?

      Delete
    5. Stg58/Animal MotherDecember 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM

      OFA isn't affiliated with Obama only in the very strictest sense of the word. The leadership are all former campaign or administration officials. The foot soldiers are all former campaign workers. Obama announced its formation. OFA (which just happens to have the same initials as the Obama campaign) is merely the campaign reorganizing itself into a post campaign organization.

      You lose again, Phony

      Delete
    6. OFA isn't affiliated with Obama only in the very strictest sense of the word.

      Uh-huh.

      So when Dipshit said "In truth, it is just one more brilliant meisterspiel by the greatest genius in the history of American politics and that is exactly what he wants you to think!", he was lying, and when you defend the lie, you're also lying?

      Delete
    7. Close, dipshit. It was a shot at commenter Porky who claimed the pratfalls of O-Care were a planned failure calculated for his gain. Context, motherfucker, can you find it?

      Delete
  9. Monthly? Try weekly. Of course, Mr. Beale has done very well out of his obsession with Scalzi - one wonders what kind of correlation exists between the increase of his page views and his "feud" with Mr. Scalzi.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Monthly? Try weekly.

    And for someone who's all about the anti-gay, he's such a bitchy little drama queen when he whines about Scalzi too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which pretty much corresponds with my theory that he is a highly repressed homosexual. Something you learn in psychology class, highly repressed (denying) homosexuals express a lot of hostility both towards women, and other (open) homosexuals.

      Delete
    2. Repressed homosexual..Ummm.. ha. Learned that in college did ya?
      They cannot define and asshole as just that, an asshole?!

      I am not a homosexual. I do believe homosexual acts are sins. They are sick and disgusting. But also, so are adulterers, and fornicators (sex before marriage or between marriages). I did have sex before marriage, twice. Once with my first wife and second with my second wife. (I couldn't hang on to the first one... she got away.. ha!)

      I am as guilty as a homosexual and an adulterer and a fornicator. I have no room to judge. But you got to admit the Flaming Political Gay people are a pain. Someone is asked and expresses their opinion and the gay politicals go ape shit. However, I am glad that GLAAD went ape over duck dynasty. The entire country got a good look at what the homosexual agenda was fueled by.

      Hate for God. Plain and simple.

      Delete
    3. Apollo: Despite what Christians insist, you pretty much are born a homosexual. In much the same way you are born with a hair color or being lefthanded. A *repressed* homosexual is someone who is born a homosexual, but either refuses to admit it to themselves, or if they do admit it to themselves, nevertheless insists on not acting on it (either they remain celibate or attempt to act as a heterosexual). Denying your homosexuality generally results in extreme hatred of women and other homosexuals.

      ** I do believe homosexual acts are sins. They are sick and disgusting.**

      Some cultures believe using the left hand is sick and disgusting. Your particular belief means nothing, and is contingent on an erroneous Christian promoted assumption that people are not born homosexuals.

      If you want to argue that particular behaviors frequently engaged in by homosexuals, such as anal sex are dangerous in regards to health, you would be correct. But there are other things homosexuals can do. And anal sex is just as bad, healthwise, when engaged in by heterosexuals. And Christians have been guilty of numerous things which have been just as much of a disaster, healthwise, such as claiming that taking a bath is 'vanity' and killing cats.

      **I am as guilty as a homosexual and an adulterer and a fornicator.**

      I'd say only the second of the three actually has any real moral 'guilt', since you violated a contract. Unless your wife said you could commit adultery.

      **But you got to admit the Flaming Political Gay people are a pain. Someone is asked and expresses their opinion and the gay politicals go ape shit.**

      That's probably true. But highly verbal fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims, or any other loud and obnoxious group) are equally a pain. And from my point of view, it really isn't much fun to have been a 6 year old girl with an IQ of 166 sent to a church school run by highly misogynist Christians, who absolutely loathed me through no fault of my own, because the simultaneous presence of a girl that intelligent in the same class as the brain damaged son of the minister pretty much shot to pieces all their theories of innate male superiority.

      **Hate for God. Plain and simple.**

      I think they don't hate 'God' so much as they hate your particular version of 'God'. When your version of 'God' tells people that they 'chose' to be homosexuals when they were actually born that way, and insists they are going to go to hell unless they stop being homosexual (which is about as impossible as changing your dominant hand or your eye color), then you should stop pretending to be surprised and offended when people hate your version of 'God'. Homosexuals find loudmouthed Christians just as offensive as the Christians find loudmouthed homosexuals. If you fail to understand this, or think that the particular loudmouthed group that you personally agree with should somehow be immune to offending those who disagree with it, then you have the maturity of a 3 year old.

      Delete
    4. Despite what Christians insist, you pretty much are born a homosexual. In much the same way you are born with a hair color or being lefthanded. - Ann

      Certian people have claimed and have certianly made a diligent search for this. They have insisted there is a "gay" gene. Which is unture. There is no gene that determines your sexuality. We are ALL capable of homosexual behavior. Some people just decide they like it. In other words, it is lust.

      I'd say only the second of the three actually has any real moral 'guilt', since you violated a contract. Unless your wife said you could commit adultery.-Ann

      It's still wrong, even with your spouses permission. Sex before marriage is also wrong because it is outside marriage.

      their theories of innate male superiority.
      -Ann


      There are only a few things males are superrior to women in this life.
      1. Strength
      2. Speed
      3. Logical Thought
      4. Ruthlessness

      Women are superior in many ways over men:
      1. Abuse - Women can take far more physical abuse then what any man can take.
      2. Decoration - Women have a better eye for decoration then men do.
      3. Child protection - Ever get in front of a womans children? Not advisable
      4. Emotions - Women are ruled by emotions - they do understand them better.
      5. Aim - Women are better shooters with firearms then men are... Not kidding.
      6. Diplomacy - I do truely believe women can avoid war better then men.
      7. Looks - Women are just plain better looking then men
      8. longevity - women live longer - Men would do anything to have a few more years then they get now.
      9. Tedious Tasks - Women can stick with tedious work much longer then men can
      10. etc..

      I think they don't hate 'God' so much as they hate your particular version of 'God'. When your version of 'God' tells people that they 'chose' to be homosexuals when they were actually born that way, and insists they are going to go to hell unless they stop being homosexual (which is about as impossible as changing your dominant hand or your eye color), then you should stop pretending to be surprised and offended when people hate your version of 'God'.-Ann

      Ann... Stopping sinning no matter the sin will NOT get you to heaven. Fact is, no human with a conscience can "stop" sinning. It is impossible. We don't start innocent and become sinners when we sin. We sin because we ARE sinners. In other words, we are born sinners and are condemned to hell once we are aware of being a sinner, which everyone who grows up achieves. I don't know the age of awareness is, but I think it is different for all of us.
      And yes, they do hate God. Why else would they demand gay marriage? "Civil Unions" would have answered the rights they don't seem to have under the present/past marriage rules from the government. No, they are demanding God reconize them as he does married couples. They are pushing for the Church to HAVE to marry them by law. This is what they are demanding. I have listened to enough of them to realize this.

      And I would agree that loudmouthed christians demanding their way is most definetly annoying as well. I ignore them as well.

      But, one should not judge God based upon mens actions.

      Delete
    5. Apollo wrote: **There is no gene that determines your sexuality.**

      Apollo, first of all, genetics is an incredibly complex subject. Gregor Mendel lucked out when he bred pea plants, and selected them for the color and the smoothness / wrinkliness of the peas, because those traits have relatively simple inheritance. Other plants and their traits are much more complex. For instance, it is a fact that almost all apple trees in orchards are grown from cuttings (making them clones of a known good producing tree) because the genetics of apples are so complex that the fruit of a tree grown from a seed often bears little resemblence to the apple that the seed came from.

      In the case of homosexuality, the fact that no 'gay gene' has been found means absolutely nothing one way or the other in regards as to whether someone is born gay or not. Homosexuality could be caused by a combination of numerous genes. It could be a result of genes that possibly simply *allow* for a certain probability of an infant being born gay. It could be a result of non genetic conditions in uteri.

      The fact that one twin can be homosexual and the other not, also does not prove that people aren't born that way. It's well documented that a lot of things in uteri can affect one twin but not the other. Thalidomide, for instance.

      The fact that all human beings are capable of homosexual behavior also means nothing. I happen to be naturally right handed, but I am capable of using my left hand, and often do so deliberately when shooting my gun, in case I am ever in a situation where, for some reason, my right hand is incapacitated. Nevertheless, the fact that I am capable of choosing to use my left hand does not prove that I am left handed, or that all people who claim to be left handed are lying about it, and are actually naturally right handed, but choosing to use the other hand out of some sort of evil perversity. There are people who are naturally left handed, and there are people who are naturally homosexual. The fact that someone can choose to use their non-dominant hand or go against their natural sexual orientation proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that human beings are fairly flexible in their behavior.

      (more below)

      Delete
    6. **And yes, they do hate God. Why else would they demand gay marriage? "Civil Unions" would have answered the rights they don't seem to have under the present/past marriage rules from the government. No, they are demanding God reconize them as he does married couples.**

      Apollo. First of all, if the homosexuals actually hate GOD, then I would say that they are a little bit confused. The reason why, is that they actually don't know God's opinion on their sexual orientation or behavior. They only know what various self-appointed third parties have CLAIMED is God's opinion on the matter. There is no actual evidence of what God thinks, other than the unsupported claims of the 3rd parties (religions). I can certainly understand them hating various RELIGIONS, and wanting to get even with them, since religions have been behind a lot of persecution of homosexuals. But they should not have any opinion about God without evidence of what God actually thinks. Which neither they nor the self-appointed religious 3rd parties have.

      Secondly, from my point of view, what people CLAIM to be 'God recognizing a marriage' in actually is simply the self-appointed human third parties recognizing a marriage. I really don't see how these self- appointed third parties even have such a right, I don't feel the need to have other self-appointed people 'validate' my relationships, and I don't see how it does homosexuals (or heterosexuals) any good to believe that they need approval from other people for their relationships, or to legally force other people into hypocrically saying that they approve of their relationships.

      I don't know what sort of mental satisfaction (beyond punishing religions for past persecution) they would get from legally forcing people to claim they approve of a relationship that they actually despise, but it seems to me that if they require such false approval, and are so immature that they think a forced approval has any real meaning, they aren't even capable of having a meaningful relationship in the first place.

      A law purporting to get *Gods* approval of a homosexual relationship is absurd. There is no evidence that God approves or disapproves of any relationship, gay or straight. The claims of self-appointed third parties that God approves or disapproves of such things are not proof of God's actual opinions. And as God is not subject to human laws, a law claiming that God now approves (or disapproves) of something is absurd. You might as well pass a law that the sun won't come up tomorrow morning, or that two suns will come up instead of one, and see what happens.

      I feel rather badly for homosexuals who hate God, when they should really be hating various human beings who have persecuted them in God's name. And I don't really feel too sorry for religions, they have repeatedly persecuted any unpopular person or group they could get away with, and in modern day America most of them have basically sold out to Ceasar, since in order to get 'tax exempt' status a church must agree that the minister will not discuss certain subjects that the government would prefer not to have discussed. That being the case, if a church sells out to Ceasar for a few pieces of silver, that it should then be called on to do more and more of Ceasar's bidding, rather than God's bidding, is exactly what it should expect.

      Delete
    7. Apollo - a few thoughts on some other things you said.

      In regards to the ways you listed that women are superior to men, there are exceptions. My boyfriend tends to express his emotions much more than I do. Some men live longer than some women. And, btw, the fact that men don't live as long might *possibly* be correctable in the future. A very large part of why men don't live as long is that the 'Y' gene has very little genetic information compared to the 'X' gene. Women have 2 X genes, therefore have a 'backup' copy if something is genetically wrong with one or the other. Men (usually) only have one X gene, so are stuck with any genetic problems that single one might have. Anyway, I once read a story, no idea if this is feasible or not, that in the future, either all the genetic information from the X gene could be put on the Y gene, or vice-versa, basically creating an artificial 'Male X' gene that would make someone who had it be male, but not be short all the genetic information from the X gene. I don't know if this is possible or not. Given that in birds, males are actually XX and the females are XY (although the genes are referred to as W and Z in birds) it possibly might be. But I think experimentation in animals would probably be advisable before tinkering with our own DNA. I am of the theory that nature can potentially be improved on, but that you had better REALLY know what you are doing before you start trying to 'improve' it. Fanatical religious, racist, or notions of 'cuteness' ideas do not constitute knowing what you are doing, btw.

      Delete
  11. Mr. Beale has just declared Phil Robertson to be "America's patriarch" which is such a world of nope that I have no idea how to adequately express it. No, he is not my patriarch. If he is anyone's patriarch, it is the small-minded and fearful who follow him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Apollo, I'd say that a slightly more rational action by homosexuals, rather than trying to legislate God, would actually be to follow the example of blacks, and demand reparations from the church for past persecution (denial of employment, involuntary confinement and medication). The key word here is that it is *slightly* more rational, since very few homosexuals alive today were victims of this.

    Other than that, they should probably simply play the 'Pot, kettle, black game'. If churches criticize them, well, there are plenty of things about the church for them to criticize. I've noticed all sorts of silence on VD's site in response to such questions as to whether God approved of the church burning women at the stake in the past because they happened to be born with a medical condition (Rh negative blood) that caused all their children after the first to be born dead or dying. Or more recently, how the Catholic church can reconcile covering up for pedophile priests with what I think is a very specific admonition by Jesus that it would be better for a person to be drowned with a millstone around their neck than to hurt children.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am not a homosexual. I do believe homosexual acts are sins. They are sick and disgusting.

    Apollo, i believe your religion is sick and disgusting. the difference is that I don't try to demand the law discriminate against you until your practice of it affects others.

    And yes, they do hate God. Why else would they demand gay marriage?

    That would be because they love each other, Apollo.

    You know, love? What you Christians preach so much about...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's not love. it is lust.

      See I can make claims without proof too.

      So there, problem solved. Not love but lust. Many People are confused between lust and love.

      Delete
    2. Apollo, unless you can man up more than the posters at Vox's forum and demonstrate your mindreading abilities to the Amazing Randi, you can't claim whether someone's particular emotion is love or lust or a combination thereof. And you are also making an unfounded assumption that lust is necessarily evil in nature.

      Delete
  14. Apollo, here's a thought question to try sometime, when you are in a logical frame of mind:

    When you subtract the following subjects from everything your religion has to say:

    1. Homosexuality
    2. Abortion
    3. Nudity
    4. Pornography
    5. Sex outside marriage
    6. Comments about the race, gender, and sexual orientation about various people.

    Exactly how much does your religion have to say, and how often, on any subjects other than those?

    Once those are subtracted, most religions say extremely little. Although there is a great deal they could be saying. I find movies such as 'Hostel' or 'Saw' to be a hell of a lot more evil and disturbing than the existence of homosexuality. As I do the recent phenomena of 'eating contests' wherein such things go on as a 6 man team consuming (over several hours) enough pizza to feed 100 people. Homosexuality merely offends people. Gluttony like that results in some people becoming fatties while others go to be hungry or actually starve to death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You take out your little 6 point list, the Bible has huge things to say, fact is... The Bible doesn't spend that much time on those subjects compared to prophecy. Or to war or empire building or to Nation Building, or to sex between a husband and wife as written in a very poetic way. Or how about the creation story? The Bible spends lots of time on idol worship. Much more then homosexuality. The Bible really doesn't address pornography.

      Homosexuality on offends people. Which people? Just the religious nuts?

      Homosexuality life style is a risky thing indeed. Disease cuts their life expectancy dramatically.
      While a happy marriage in a heterosexually couple tends to extend peoples lives.

      Stuffing 100 people worth of food into 6 people doesn't seem particularly bright to me.

      While gluttony usually results in obesity (fatties? Why do you hate weight challenged people so much? Do you pick on them in cruel ways whenever you can?)

      Not all the people that you see that are obese is at fault. So many them are getting overweight because of the poisons and chemicals in processed food.

      Also GMO foods cause some of it as well.

      But homosexuality is a choice. Otherwise we will have to let pedophiles access to children, to do otherwise would be bigotry to deny them their sexual urges. Is that what you want?

      Delete
    2. **You take out your little 6 point list, the Bible has huge things to say, fact is... The Bible doesn't spend that much time on those subjects compared to prophecy.**

      As a matter of fact, the bible doesn't spend all that much time discussing homosexuality. But you are not reading what I wrote, I didn't ask how much the BIBLE had to say, when you took out my 6 point list. I asked how much your particular *religion* had to say.

      **Homosexuality on offends people. Which people? Just the religious nuts?**

      As a matter of fact, it offends me. But my offense is meaningless, and I don't feel the need to attribute it to God, or to cherry pick a document written by other people who attributed their personal offenses to God.

      **Homosexuality life style is a risky thing indeed. Disease cuts their life expectancy dramatically. While a happy marriage in a heterosexually couple tends to extend peoples lives.**

      Ah. Point here, you refer to a 'homosexual lifestyle' without specifying exactly what you mean by that. If you mean that having frequent anal sex with numerous partners is a bad health risk, you are correct. But that behavior is not synonymous with being a homosexual.

      Direct question, who do you think would be at greater risk for their health:
      1. A monogamous homosexual who did not have anal sex with their partner.
      2. A heterosexual who had frequent, unprotected anal sex, with numerous women prostitutes.

      **While gluttony usually results in obesity (fatties? Why do you hate weight challenged people so much? Do you pick on them in cruel ways whenever you can?)**

      Apollo, while not all overweight people overeat (I know one woman who is overweight because she has such horrible arthritis she can barely walk), overeating will cause obesity. I object to extreme overeating more than I object to homosexuality, because there are hungry and poor people in the world. I object to violent wasting for the same reason.

      **But homosexuality is a choice.**
      No more than hair color is a 'choice'. Some people are born homosexuals, some people are born with red hair. Some people are born with neither, but choose to experiment with homosexual behavior or hair dye.

      **Otherwise we will have to let pedophiles access to children, to do otherwise would be bigotry to deny them their sexual urges. Is that what you want?**

      Apollo, first of all, homosexuality is not synonymous with pedophilia. Secondly, pedophilia has been deliberately legally misdefined nowadays since it included large numbers of so-called 'children' who are biologically adults, but are under some arbitrarily defined legal age. Thirdly, since I was sexually molested thousands of times as a child, while numerous adults (both religious and non-religious) did their utmost to protect my abusers and make sure that the abuse continued, arguments claiming to want to oppress some adult group in order to 'save children from pedophiles' are meaningless to me, since my own experience has proven to my satisfaction that very few adults are actually interested in protecting 'the children'.

      Delete
  15. An analyis of Phil Robertson, America's 'Patriarch'.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    **He said: ‘I have been immoral, drunk, high. I ran with the wicked people for 28 years and I have run with the Jesus people since and the contrast is astounding.**

    So, first of all, he's like the man in 'The Screwtape Letters' who was simultaneously deceptive to 2 seperate groups of people, but instead of feeling ashamed, congratulates himself on his treachery. And secondly, he had his sexual fun for most of his life, then when his testeosterone level, and ability to defend himself in a bar fight both start to drop in late middle age, he conveniently THEN suddenly finds religion and decides to be 'virtuous'.

    **‘We murder each other and we steal from one another, sex and immorality goes ballistic.**

    So he equates murder and theft, which have actual victims, with acts between consenting adults. On what logic?

    **All the diseases that just so happen to follow sexual mischief… boy there are some microbes running around now.**

    Carpets in hospitals spread plenty of diseases, and unlike having sex, people don't choose to end up in a hospital. If he is so concerned about 'microbes' why isn't he preaching about carpets in hospitals. Why only sexual diseases, which are actually very hard to catch. It seems he is not concerned with 'diseases', or people who catch them through no fault of their own, but only in using the concept of 'disease' as an excuse to complain about sexual activity that he already dislikes for other reasons.

    **Sexual sins are numerous and many** And of course, he gets to tell you what those 'sexual sins' supposedly are, while mysteriously never mentioning that the 'sexual immorality' in the bible was pretty damned immoral, and consisted of such things as people having an orgy in front of a metal idol where 3 year old children were burned alive, while music played to drown out the screaming.


    **Commonsense says we are not going to procreate the human race unless we have a man and a woman.** That's probably true, but what's his point? The fact that a minority of people choose not to procreate is hardly going to result in the human race going extinct. And if his position is that procreation is the sole purpose of sex, can I assume that he will remain celibate for the rest of his life once his wife reaches menopause?

    **‘But we looked at it and said it was an outdated stereotype. When you look back at the human race, the sins have always been the same: We get high, we get drunk, we get laid, we steal and kill.**

    So, if nothing in the bible is 'outdated' can I assume he does not wear 50% cotton 50% polyester clothing? And I also notice that he is again conflating acts with victims such as theft and murder, with acts that do not have victims such as getting drunk or having sex. On what logic?

    **Then reading from the Bible he said, ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious. Sexual immorality, is number one on the list. How many ways can we sin sexually? My goodness. You open up that can of worms and people will be mad at you over it.**

    Again, failure to mention that the 'sexual immorality' in the bible involved burning 3 year old children to death while having an orgy, not two men having gay sex in the privacy of their own bedroom. Deliberate omission or just plain ignorance? Either way, someone who lies or is ignorant is not a fit 'patriarch' for anyone more honest or intelligent than himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. **I am just reading what was written over 2000 years ago. Those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom. All I did was quote from the scriptures, but they just didn’t know it. Whether I said it, or they read it, what’s the difference? The sins are the same, humans haven’t changed.**

      So... if the sins are exactly the same as in the bible, he would have no ethical problem with someone lobotomizing him, stealing his kidney to sell on the black market, or drugging him against his will, since those acts were not possible to perform in biblical days. I also notice that he presumes to be the arbiter of God, in that he pronounces who will and will not 'inherit the kingdom'. Not to mention the assumption that something written 2000 years ago is necessarily truthful. According to Robertson himself, people haven't changed, and that would include the ability to lie or be mistaken in things that they write.


      **‘A lot of times they don’t even wait for you to finish and say, ‘But there’s a way out, do you want to hear the rest of the story or what?**

      So the assumption here is that people are obligated to accept his unproven claims about what is and isn't a sin, and waste their time listening to him make such claims.

      **Jesus will take sins away, if you’re a homosexual he’ll take it away, if you’re an adulterer, if you’re a liar, what’s the difference? If you break one sin you may as well break them all.**

      What if someone says that being lefthanded or white is a sin? Will God turn him black when he goes to heaven, or is there nothing wrong with being born a certain color. If not, by what logic are other things a person is born with judged to be inherently wrong?

      **If we lose our morality, we will lose our country. It will happen. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all walk around without stealing from each other and killing each other?**

      Although rampant crimes with victims will destroy a country, he is again conflating acts with no victims with acts that do have victims.

      **‘We are a bunch of rednecks from Louisiana, but I am not uneducated, I have a degree from Louisiana Tech.'**

      He is either not educated enough to be aware of how Moloch was worshipped in biblical days, or is deliberately lying.

      **He added: ‘Jesus Christ was the most perfect being to ever walk this planet and he was persecuted and nailed to the cross, so please don’t be surprised when we get a little static.’**

      The fact that Jesus was perfect and was treated badly cannot be equated to mean that the fact that Christians are treated badly therefore means that they are more 'perfect', or even more like Jesus, than other people.

      In short, this man is either ignorant or lying, unable or unwilling to seperate the concepts of acts that have victims from acts that do not, a hypocrite, a traitor, and has the immaturity of a 3 year old when it comes to sex, and Vox thinks these qualities fit him to be a 'patriarch'.

      Delete
    2. How many Atheists are beaten, raped, tortured, murdered for their belief that there is no God? Heard of any lately?

      How many Christians are beaten, raped, tortured, murdered for their belief in Jesus?

      I am guessing you can look it up.
      Why are atheists beliefs approved of by our government? i.e. secularism.
      Why are Christian beliefs and traditions declared unlawful when there are specific articles in the constitution that congress can not pass any laws for or against religion of anykind nor stop the practice therof?
      i.e. A manger setup at christmas time at a government owned property. But the atheist belief and practice is ok. Nothing to do, nothing to believe in.

      Why are the Christians left out?
      If atheists have such heartburn over practicing anything religious on government property, then why do they get christmas time off? Why aren't they forced to work (at least government workers) with no holiday pay? hmmm? Speaking of hypocrits.

      Delete
    3. Apollo wrote: **How many Atheists are beaten, raped, tortured, murdered for their belief that there is no God? Heard of any lately?**

      Heard of the Spanish Inquisition? You can't handwave bad behavior of Christians away because it occured in the past. When Christians were in power, they behaved just as intolerantly as the atheists do when they are in power.

      **How many Christians are beaten, raped, tortured, murdered for their belief in Jesus?**

      About all you've shown here is that most human beings will rape, torture, and murder other human beings who beliefs or behavior are different from the majority, and that those who are willing to do so to others will complain loudly when the same thing is done a few centuries later to them.

      **Why are atheists beliefs approved of by our government? i.e. secularism.**

      Why were Christianity, Catholicism, or Protestantism approved of by governments in the past, and other beliefs declared unlawful. See above.

      Why are the Christians left out?
      Why were atheists, heretics, and pagans left out 500 years ago?

      **If atheists have such heartburn over practicing anything religious on government property, then why do they get christmas time off? Why aren't they forced to work (at least government workers) with no holiday pay? hmmm? Speaking of hypocrits.**

      That one I agree with somewhat, except that if Christians are entitled to either time off or extra pay on X number of holidays a year, so should everyone else be. If they want to take their time off on Christian holidays, or a different religion's holidays, or on the birthdays of their favorite movie stars, that's nobody's business, provided they get the same number of days off or days with extra pay as everyone else.

      Delete
  16. So, an interesting thought occured to me as I went about my routine today. There is actually an awful lot of similiarity between the behavior of the most loud and obnoxious Christian groups, and the most loud and obnoxious gay rights groups. To list a few points:

    1. Both groups are loudly critical of various 'hate objects'. Frequently, eachother.

    2. Both groups demand that their own beliefs, premises, and behavior be placed above or beyond any sort of questioning or criticism, even when they are provably obnoxious or false. Publicly questioning the beliefs, premises, or behavior of either group results either in dead silence, handwaving, or immature temper tantrums, rather than tangible answers.

    3. Both groups ultimately operate off guilt.

    4. Both groups demand legislation to force private individuals and businesses to comply with their beliefs and premises.

    5. Both groups regularly appear in the news.

    6. Both groups bring in a lot of money.

    7. Both groups bring in the votes of a lot of people.

    Seems like a very conveniently coincidental symmetry and circularity for SOMEONE. Is there any way of finding out if they are controlled at the highest levels by the same people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is actually an awful lot of similiarity between the behavior of the most loud and obnoxious Christian groups, and the most loud and obnoxious gay rights groups.

      I believe you mean "anti-gay rights groups".

      Delete
    2. This story might help

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/25/raw-storys-five-biggest-anti-lgbt-a-holes-of-2013/

      Delete
    3. No, actually, Phoenician, I meant gay rights groups. I'm starting to think that the rivalry between the supposedly 'opposing' groups is actually artificially generated, like the rivalry between supposedly opposing football teams. And the purpose is the same, to generate money for various people, because of all the 'rivalry'. Except it's worse, because most people are dimly aware on some level that the 'rivalry' between football teams is artificially generated, and they lack such awareness of the rivalry between fundamentalist Christian groups and gay rights groups. Or pro-choice/ pro-life groups.

      Delete
    4. Phoenician, the fact that the most loud and obnoxious fundamentalist Christian groups and the most loud and obnoxious gay rights groups have (supposedly) diametrically opposite positions, and (supposedly) hate one another is incidental to the fact that their behavior is remarkably similiar to one another in the ways that I listed, and their opposition is generating money and votes for SOMEONE(s).

      Hate is a fertile source of money and power, regardless of who or what you hate. Sometime, read the book 'Inferno' (by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle), which is a modern day sequel to Dante's inferno. The book features a man in hell, who, during life, was opposed to nuclear power plants. Supposedly (he claimed during life) he was worried about the safety of nuclear power plants. A noble sentiment, and you would think God would give him a pass. But as it turned out, he had, in fact, actually been PRIVATELY convinced of the safety of nuclear power plants, but continued to publicly oppose them, resulting in increased air pollution from coal burning power plants. Why? Because his position as the head of the nuclear protest group was highly lucrative. If he had publicly admitted that he actually saw nothing wrong with nuclear power, and that people should stop opposing it, he would have had to give up all the money, fame, and power he got from his position.

      Delete
    5. Phoenician, I think your confusion here is that by 'Gay Rights groups' in this particular usage, I don't mean those homosexuals or gay rights groups who behave politely, and simply want equal rights for gays, but rather, those who want to use their homosexuality as an excuse to deliberately offend people, while being immune from even being told they are offensive, who want MORE rights than anyone else, and to take rights away from other people. Forcing people to practice their religion in a way they don't believe in, or to bake a cake that they don't want to bake is taking rights away from people just as much as telling them that they can't have a civil marriage ceremony with whoever they want to. The behavior of THOSE particular obnoxious 'gay rights groups' is what is similiar to, and generates the same sort of money and votes, as the behavior of the most obnoxious fundamentalist Christian groups. But it may be that human beings bring such obnoxious people on themselves, if they would give everyone equal rights in the first place, the obnoxious groups would not have molehills to make into mountains.

      Delete
    6. 1. Both groups are loudly critical of various 'hate objects'. Frequently, eachother.

      So by me saying that it is stated in the Bible that homosexual sex is an obomination, then I have comitted a hate sin? But if I refuse to say that yes in fact the Bible does state this, then I am a hypocrite.
      Well, the Bible DOES state that homosexual sex IS an abomination before God. Nothing homosexuals can do about it. They can hate it and fight it, or embrace it.

      2. Both groups demand that their own beliefs, premises, and behavior be placed above or beyond any sort of questioning or criticism, even when they are provably obnoxious or false. Publicly questioning the beliefs, premises, or behavior of either group results either in dead silence, handwaving, or immature temper tantrums, rather than tangible answers.

      I don't demand my beliefs be placed above anyone elses. However, if they do not believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, well then you are condemned to hell and what you say/argue/demand will one day matter not one bit. unless of course the atheists are right. Then it STILL doesn't matter.


      3. Both groups ultimately operate off guilt.


      Yes, gay rights groups do seem to be operating off of guilt.
      However, with Christians (most anyways) you are confusing guilt with conviction.
      Christians are no longer guilty. their sins are covered by the Blood of Christ. Non-believing sinners sins are not.


      4. Both groups demand legislation to force private individuals and businesses to comply with their beliefs and premises.


      I agree with this when it comes to civil rights movements of anything... i.e. feminists, islamics, lillegal immigrants, gays, pedophiles,etc...
      For Christians, most anyways, they just want the constitution to be interpreted properly (as it is written) and ENFORCED completely, not selectively. or this might be me projecting my political stand.


      5. Both groups regularly appear in the news.

      Yes

      6. Both groups bring in a lot of money.

      Yes, corruption is a strong problem in a lot of areas in this country.

      7. Both groups bring in the votes of a lot of people.

      I didn't vote for Romney or for McCain. I wouldn't vote for Bush if I knew what I know now back then.
      We do not live in a democracy, Gay activists have shown that time and again. They convinced the courts that sodomy is a legitimate form of private issue. So now sodomy laws have been struck down. in a democracy, we all would have voted on it. Not have the SCOTUS decide.

      Delete
  17. Ann: 1. Both groups are loudly critical of various 'hate objects'. Frequently, eachother.

    Apollo: So by me saying that it is stated in the Bible that homosexual sex is an obomination, then I have comitted a hate sin? But if I refuse to say that yes in fact the Bible does state this, then I am a hypocrite.

    Irrelevent. You're confusing motivations with actions. It doesn't matter whether your motivation for being loudly critical of homosexuals is because it says so in the bible, or whether the motivation for homosexuals being loudly critical of Christians is that Elvis Presley told them to do so. The point here is that both groups are behaving similiarly (regardless of their respective motivations) in being loudly critical of various hate objects. I would also question whether Christians are criticizing homosexuals because and only because the bible told them to do so, or (given their silence and disobedience on many other things the bible directs people to do) they are inclined to hate homosexuals of their own accord, and simply cherry pick through the bible for a justification for doing so.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ann: 2. Both groups demand that their own beliefs, premises, and behavior be placed above or beyond any sort of questioning or criticism, even when they are provably obnoxious or false. Publicly questioning the beliefs, premises, or behavior of either group results either in dead silence, handwaving, or immature temper tantrums, rather than tangible answers.

    Apollo: I don't demand my beliefs be placed above anyone elses. However, if they do not believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, well then you are condemned to hell and what you say/argue/demand will one day matter not one bit. unless of course the atheists are right. Then it STILL doesn't matter.

    First of all, my statement was that the two groups demanded that their beliefs and behavior be placed above questioning or criticism. Which is a seperate matter than demanding that their beliefs be placed above other beliefs, since questioning or criticizing something is not necessarily indicative of any other particular belief or lack thereof.

    Secondly, you have created a false dichotomy, that EITHER a variety of Christianity the proposes a homosexual hating God is true, OR atheism is true. There are a lot of other options, including God not caring one way or the other about gays, God actually preferring gays, or some other religion such as Hinduism actually being true.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apollo: **For Christians, most anyways, they just want the constitution to be interpreted properly (as it is written) and ENFORCED completely, not selectively. or this might be me projecting my political stand**

    I disagree, since numerous Christians historically have demanded that civil (not religious) rights be denied to women, various nationalities and races, various other religions, and homosexuals.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ann: 7. Both groups bring in the votes of a lot of people.

    Apollo: I didn't vote for Romney or for McCain. I wouldn't vote for Bush if I knew what I know now back then.

    Irrelevent. The point is not who you personally vote for, but who other people are voting for, and why. And a lot of people vote for whoever promises to put restrictions and punishments on their particular 'hate objects'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Irrelevent. You're confusing motivations with actions.-Ann

      Actually I am not. First of all, I don't hate homosexuals/gay. I don't hate pedophiles, although I pray to God to physically restrain me if I ever catch one in the act. I don't hate anybody. I have made several friends whom I got into bitter fights with when I was younger, only to become friends that same day. The disagreement forgiven and forgotten.
      I have worked with many people some straight, some gay. What they do is none of my buisness. If they ask me about my beliefs and many, many people do (they are curious), I tell them what I believe. When in person the acceptance can be much greater, or more hostile. But I always got a level of respect and never had problems with it.


      Irrelevent. The point is not who you personally vote for, but who other people are voting for, and why. And a lot of people vote for whoever promises to put restrictions and punishments on their particular 'hate objects'.
      -Ann

      Thats just it. I don't want nobody beating anyone over the head, politically speaking.

      I disagree, since numerous Christians historically have demanded that civil (not religious) rights be denied to women, various nationalities and races, various other religions, and homosexuals.
      -Ann

      I must say that this was NOT a Christian religious demand as more of a culture demand. People justified themselves with twisting the Bible. But that doesn't mean God was agreeing with them. You wanna know what God thinks about most things that go on in this world. become a Christian and read the Bible from the perspective of the Holy Spirit. If you are making the Bible clompicated, you are probably twisting it.

      Delete
    2. Apollo wrote: **I must say that this was NOT a Christian religious demand as more of a culture demand. People justified themselves with twisting the Bible. But that doesn't mean God was agreeing with them.**

      Apollo: Claiming it was not a Christian religious demand is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

      I would agree with you that I don't think God did agree with them. But one question here:

      1. If you acknowledge that God did not agree with what people who claimed to be Christians wanted in, and used the bible to justify in past times, then is it not possible that God does not agree with what people who claim to be Christians want, and use the bible to justify in the present time? If not, why not? Why should people in the past be capable of mistakes or lies (bible twisting) but not people in the present? Other than your wanting things to be that way.

      My position is this: Before trying to control or punish other people for some activity on the basis of God supposedly not liking it (rather than it harming other people, which is much more easibly provable), I would have to be very, very, very sure that God did not, in fact, like what the people were doing.

      The reason why, is that I think I would much rather be in the position of having to explain to God (after I die) that I failed to punish someone because I wasn't entirely sure that what they were doing was actually against God's will, rather than having to be in the position of having to explain to God something along the lines of exactly why I burned several innocent women to death because I THOUGHT (but couldn't prove, because it wasn't the case) that they had sacrificed their children to the devil, when the real truth was that they had the misfortune of having Rh- blood.

      Delete
  18. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Apollo: **We do not live in a democracy, Gay activists have shown that time and again. They convinced the courts that sodomy is a legitimate form of private issue. So now sodomy laws have been struck down. in a democracy, we all would have voted on it. Not have the SCOTUS decide.**

    First of all, Apollo, the founding fathers intended for us to have a republic, not a democracy. It was the desire of people for a democracy, so that they could vote against their pet hate objects, which got us into this mess. But a democracy is a dangerous system. Private behavior, whether it be Sodomy, Christianity, or taking a bath in a tub full of noodles should not be subject either to vote, OR to the supreme court, to either legalize or make illegal.

    It's very tempting to want to be given the keys to hell, to restrain and punish people doing things you find offensive. But once you enable the government to give you the keys to hell, very little prevents the government from giving those keys to your enemies, later, and stopping YOU from doing those things you want. And what may be of greater importance is that I find it highly unlikely that anyone who is so eager to be given the keys to hell by Ceasar is going to also be given, by God, the keys to heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't have said it better myself. Pity God couldn't rule us like he did with Israel until they turned their back on him and demanded a human king. King Saul.

      Delete
    2. I think people would do better if they simply had their human rulers attend to crimes which provably have human victims. And without resorting to complex definitions of 'victims' such as 'society', or 'civilization'. If God is offended by homosexuality, or eating spaghetti or watching public television, God is capable of taking care of the matter if and when he wants to.

      I read a while back about an oriental culture that had a practice of eating until you were only 80% full, rather than completely stuffed. Which is actually good advice, healthwise, and for avoiding gluttonous behavior with food that could be given to hungry people. And is a principle that should probably be applied to the rest of life as well. People need to figure out the 80% of what they can have, out of what they might crave, and stick to that. There are examples of why this is a good idea, everywhere. For instance, auto-erotic asphixiation, such as killed David Carradine is a bad idea. Regardless of how good it might feel, there are probably things that feel almost as good, that are not nearly as dangerous. As for other people, Christians need to stick to the 80% of what they want that involves following Christianity and leaving other people alone. Homosexuals need to stick to what they want that involves living their own lifestyle, and not trying to force religions to advocate it, if it is against that particular religion.

      Possibly a solution like that of the city of Deadwood (featured in the cable TV series) might work. The local sherriff and the local crime boss came to an informal agreement, in which half the town was under the rule of law and half had no law. You lived in which half you preferred, and if you chose to visit the other half, it was understood that you either entered the part of town under control of the local crime boss at your own risk, or you did not drink or whore in the part of the town under the control of the sheriff.

      I do know that I am getting increasingly tired of the loud arguments of certain people of both sides, and more and more tax money being taken from me to suppport more and more laws to oppress behaviors or religions that I don't really care all that much one way or the other about.

      Delete
  19. Apollo: I do know that Vox is a provable liar or idiot. He claims to be a Libertarian, but his various statements, such as advocating killing people (including 2 year olds) if 'God' wants it, or advocating mutilating women (for the good of society) are a direct contradiction of that. A Libertarian is someone who does not believe in the initiation of force against other human beings. Period. End of Story. I won't get into the argument here as to whether embryoes are 'human', but other than that ambiguous area, there are no exceptions in the Libertarian principle of not initiating force against other people for 'God' supposely wanting you to do so. Or for the 'good of society. Since Vox thinks it's fine to kill people if God wants you to, and mutilate people for some arbitrary 'good' of some arbitrary 'society' he is either lying about being a Libertarian, or is too stupid to comprehend as simple a principle as not initiating force against other people. Either way, I won't take religious advice from liars or idiots.

    I do enjoy my conversations with you on here, you seem to be able to engage in a fairly good debate. It is good for people to debate on religion, because ultimately, if you remove from religion everything that is provably false, what you are left with is probably pretty close to truth. Or at least closer than it was before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a blog Ann? I only seem to be engaging you... In a internet verbal/text fashion.

      Delete
  20. A new post wherein Vox engages in the Freudian practice of psychological projection:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    **If the consequences of your self-declared victorious approach to intellectual disputation is to make formerly indifferent people hate and despise you, then perhaps it is time to consider an entirely different rhetorical approach.** - Vox Day - from his blog
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    **You must bring him to a condition in which he can practise self-examination for an hour without discovering any of those facts about himself which are perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house with him or worked in the same office....** - CS Lewis from "The Screwtape Letters"

    ReplyDelete
  21. And today's stupidity from Dipshit"...

    ----
    He's completely wrong. Africans don't adopt European culture for three reasons. First, because they can't. Second, because they prefer their own culture. Third, because Europeans have increasingly abandoned it themselves. Europeans have been trying to force Africans to adopt European culture for more than 200 years. It's not possible, and more to the point, it's not their choice.
    [...]
    Remember, the Roman legions didn't permit their soldiers to marry until AFTER their 20-year term of service was complete.
    ----

    Uh-huh.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20536_5-ridiculous-lies-you-believe-about-ancient-civilizations.html

    (No.4)

    ReplyDelete
  22. And the newest, in which Vox reveals that he has all the mental depth of a horny 14 year old boy and despite all his blather about superior intellectual and moral qualities, in actuality, judges people ENTIRELY by their appearance:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    **Remember, there are no shortage of whites, especially overweight, unattractive white women, who genuinely prefer the African culture of living fast, consuming conspicuously, and dying young in a promiscuous, matriarchal society to the European culture of living conservatively and saving to build for the future in a sexually restricted patriarchal society. As with all things economic, these are questions of preferences and time-orientation, not morality or science.**
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of course, the only difference between the 'overweight, unattractive white women' and the 'slender, sexy, white women' is are NOT their innate preferences and time orientation as Vox claims, but that the latter are able to get a wealthier sugar daddy to support them.

    Here's a little insight from 4 years of college biology: If a parasite manages to infect a larger (wealthier) host, the fact that the host is larger (wealthier) will ameliorate or disguise the worst effects of the parasitical infestation, compared to a parasite that infests a smaller (less wealthy) host. But that doesn't mean that the parasite infesting the larger host is any less parasitical. In fact, it may be MORE parasitical, but can get away with it because of the larger host.

    Case in point, I once owned a kitten that weighed about a pound and had a botfly.

    ONE botfly.

    And that one botfly nearly killed it. The kitten had to have emergency surgery to save it's life.

    Contrast that with the fact that horses and cattle can often have dozens of botflies, without putting their lives in serious danger. They are exactly the same botflies that my kitten had, and they are no less parasitical. In fact, given their greater numbers, they are far MORE parasitical.

    But the cow or horse is a far larger (wealthier) host than a kitten, so the worst effects of a botfly infestation are ameliorated.

    A slender, sexy white woman is not necessarily more moral in her preferences or time orientation, or less of a parasite, than an unattractive, overweight, white woman. Indeed, if she spends $2000 a week on cocaine, beauty treatments, and jewelry, she is arguably far MORE of a parasite than the unattractive woman who spends $200 a week on corn chips, lottery tickets, and cheap liquor. The only difference is that the sexy woman is able to get a millionaire to support her spending habits, thus disguising the worst effects of them, in much the same way as infecting a horse rather than a kitten disguises the worst effects of botfly infestation.

    But I suppose it is not surprising that since Vox knows nothing about dairy farming or chemistry, he would also know nothing about basic parasitology.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As a side note, since Vox said a while ago that he would not talk about subjects that he knew nothing about, can I safely assume that he will no longer discuss dairy farming, chemistry, parasitology, psychology, embryology, neurology, ethics, or sex?

    Based on the speed at which he comes up with new subjects and promptly shows that he knows absolutely nothing about them, he is going to run out of things to talk about within a few years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann, you are borderline doing the same thing you are accusing VD of doing. However, seeing as I have never proven anyone wrong in my life through debating. What do I know?

      Delete
  24. Hey Pox Vopoli, did you forget this blog? Or is it dead?

    I did enjoy the conversations with you all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. More nonsense from Vox:

    ** The homosexual advocates are constantly trying to claim that those who are opposed to normalizing and institutionalizing sexual abnormalities are outnumbered, but the fact is that we remain the majority and we always will. The Left will cite its cherry-picked polls and point to the youth, making the same static mistake it makes about everything, ignoring the fact that a) the youth are stupid, and, b) most of them grow up eventually.**

    First of all, Vox is again playing his old game of equating power (in this case, being a majority) with being morally right. By that standard, you can justify all sorts of things, up to and including genocide.

    Secondly, not all 'youth' are stupid, as Vox claimed. It's a demonstrable fact that at the age of 6, I knew more about mathematics than my first grace teacher. As for youth supposedly 'growing up' as Vox claims, the only thing he can actually prove is that people's opinions tend to change over time, as they get older. They do not always change to be more accurate or more moral. They may, in fact, become less accurate or moral as the person gets older. An older person is probably better than a younger person at brown-nosing a boss who is an idiot, partly because they have more practice at it, partly because they have more to lose if they don't brown-nose the boss. But that doesn't mean that the statements they make that the boss wants to hear are necessarily accurate or moral.

    Also, Vox is making two very big unstated assumption here that sexual practices engaged in by a minority of people are first of all 'abnormalities', and secondly, are therefore immoral and undesirable because of their status as 'abnormalities'. By that standard, having red hair, being left handed, or having Rh- blood are all therefore 'abnormalities' and 'evil', and people with those traits should be discriminated against.

    Come to think of it, people with red hair, Rh- blood, and who use their left hand HAVE, in fact, been regarded as 'abnormal' and 'evil' and discriminated against in the past by the 'majority' of 'normal' people in the culture that they live in. People living in those past cultures were taught to hate those with red hair, or Rh- blood.

    Learning this pointless hatred is what Vox refers to as 'growing up', and failing to understand that this sort of hatred is purely arbitrary and taught, and instead attributing it to some divine revelation is good proof that Vox himself has never 'grown up' in any meaningful sense.

    Also, Vox is again making claims that would require supernatural abilities on his part, in order to make accurately. He claims that those who dislike what he calls 'sexual abnormalities' will always be a majority. Unless he has supernatural precognitive abilities, he cannot accurately make such a statement. We no longer hate people who are left handed, or have red hair or Rh- blood, even though we did in the past, and it's entirely likely that in the future we may no longer hate people who engage in different sexual practices than other people. If Vox claims to have knowledge of the future such that he knows that we will never stop hating this particular group of people, then he needs to either man up and prove his precognitive abilities to the Amazing Randi, or retract his statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Ann. This part is really awful, "failing to understand that this sort of hatred is purely arbitrary and taught, and instead attributing it to some divine revelation."

      I am a Christian and I can tell you that one of the worst things a Christian can do is to speak hatred in His name. It's actually heartbreaking to see. It's better to be a drunk atheist sleeping in the street then somebody who speaks evil and claims it's coming from God.

      The real tragedy of it all is that Christians who would advocate hatred do more harm to Christianity then all the gay pride parades in the world. The truth of this simply speaks for itself.

      Delete
    2. GG, a few things:

      1. I notice that there seem to be a certain number of obnoxious people in the world. Some of them are obnoxious gays. Some of them are obnoxious Christians. These obnoxious people have a number of things in common including being loud and obnoxious, wanting to force other people to accept their particular set of beliefs, criticizing all other beliefs while claiming victimhood if THEIR beliefs or behavior are ever criticized, and also claiming that the worst people of other beliefs are typical of those other beliefs, while the worst acts of their own beliefs are to be handwaved away.

      2. Anyone who demands that others be oppressed in the name of their particular deity of choice had better be 100% right in everything that they say or do. The moment they are wrong, on anything, however small, they open the possibility of being wrong in what they claim their deity of choice wants.

      3. People will end up, after they die, in the hands of whatever God or devil represents the principles they actually believed in and lived by, regardless of what name they spoke from their lips. If they live by principles of a deity that wants human beings to behave like violent pitbulls supporting a psychopathic owner, they will find themselves in the hands of a violent, psychopathic 'God' after they die, and if they think that 'God' (or devil) is going to suddenly do a 180 degree about-face after they die and become all sweetness and light, they are deluding themselves. So I'd say you are right in that it would be better to be a drunken atheist, than a Christian who speaks 'evil' in the name of God. The drunk might find themselves in the hand of some 'God' that supports being drunk (like the Greek Bacchus), so I suppose might be somewhat happy. You also don't know why someone is sleeping drunk on the street, some people have lives that have simply always highly sucked.

      The big problem with the world is that it's easier to destroy and hate, than to create and fix things. It takes months (or years) to make a sky-scraper. It takes only seconds to blow one up. Hate is easy, it takes no effort and makes you feel superior. Actually helping people takes time and money, and doesn't necessarily always make you feel superior, so it's a much harder sell. It's especially tempting (and makes a very good sell) to attribute your hatreds to 'God' rather than to something you were taught, or something wired in your own brain, because then you not only get to feel superior to whatever you hate, but you also get to feel holy and self-righteous BECAUSE you hate and treat people badly, rather than being ashamed. It's a very easy sell, and also a moral trap once you buy into it, because once you do buy into it, in order to get out of it, you have to confront the blood on your own hands, which most people are not willing to do.

      Delete
    3. Ann,

      1. Yes, there are obnoxious people around.

      2. Opression is a human flaw/behaviour. Not Gods. Jesus wants all people to come to him. If you do come to him, don't be surprised if he changes you. When he does change you it is for the better. Not always how non-Christians view as better. But as how God sees as better.
      However, some people don't get better. they resist God, which isn't a good thing.

      3. Ending up in the hands of an angry God is a very scary thing.

      Also... This "opression" you are talking about. Is this about gays being opressed by Christians because gays want the right to marry? Or that Christians insist that homosexuality is a sin? or both?

      Delete
    4. That's well said, Ann. I once encountered some Catholic doctrine that had one of my favorite dictates about homosexuality. It implied homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself, only acting on it is, precisely like heterosexuality. It is not a sin to be a heterosexual in and of itself, but it is a sin to be outside the bounds of marriage, casting about the proof of your heterosexuality all across your community. It gave me a chuckle because that really is how foolish we people are. As if God is not going to see our own behavior if we just distract Him by pointing our fingers at gays.

      Christ said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's astounding, today people actually line up to do it.

      Delete
    5. Apollo: you wrote: **Also... This "opression" you are talking about. Is this about gays being opressed by Christians because gays want the right to marry? Or that Christians insist that homosexuality is a sin? or both?**

      Apollo, short answer to your question, would be both, assuming that gays want to have a religious marriage in those religions that are opposed to it, and assuming Christians want to use the idea of homosexuality being a 'sin' to justify action against homosexuals.

      A few comments:

      First of all, I'm not a big fan of the concept of 'marriage'. What it amounts to is that claiming sex is EVIL, unless given approval by some self-annointed third party. To me, that's nonsense in both a secular and religious sense. In a secular sense, it's like saying that it's evil to go steal Mr. Smith's car to go joyriding, even if Mr. Smith says I can, unless Mr. Jones gives his permission first, and that Smith's permission isn't even necessary at all. In a religious sense, if you require the permission of the local minister to have sex... basically that makes the minister a pimp and the church the world's largest brothel using enslaved prostitutes (since it has claimed ownership of all human beings absent their specific permission).

      Delete
    6. GG wrote: ** It implied homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself, only acting on it is, precisely like heterosexuality. It is not a sin to be a heterosexual in and of itself, but it is a sin to be outside the bounds of marriage, casting about the proof of your heterosexuality all across your community.**

      GG, the problem I have with the idea of 'being homosexual isn't a sin, but acting on it is a sin' is that people are born that way. Unless the church is willing to have gay marriage, which thus far they are not, they are putting an unfair burden on certain people, which is no different than claiming that it isn't evil to be left-handed, but it is evil to use your left hand, which would highly suck for those people who are left handed, as they would either have to use their right hand (which is un-natural for them) or no hand at all.

      If you want to argue that anal sex with frequent partners is pretty much a disaster health-wise, I would agree with you, but it's just as much of a disaster when done by a straight man with numerous women, as it is when done by a gay man with numerous men.

      If you want to argue that sex is supposed to be for reproduction only, because the bible says so, you had first of all better show me that you are following ALL of the bible, and secondly, that you are never getting a blow job from your wife and will give up sex completely once she reaches menopause. Otherwise you are just handwaving.

      Delete
    7. Apollo, short answer to your question, would be both, assuming that gays want to have a religious marriage in those religions that are opposed to it, and assuming Christians want to use the idea of homosexuality being a 'sin' to justify action against homosexuals. - Ann

      First off, Since when is pointing out the sin of homosexuality taking "action" against them? To a Christian that is like pointing out the fact that theft is a sin, different levels but still a sin.

      if you require the permission of the local minister to have sex... basically that makes the minister a pimp and the church the world's largest brothel using enslaved prostitutes -Ann

      You twist what God says is good and holy. Do you not like how God set things up?

      I could go into how a society is built up by the family unit and grows through the years and how society falls and gets more and more corrupt when you destroy the family unit? How children are more successful when both parents are present at the home while the children are growing up? Also how important grandparents are to the home and society in general? If you can't then re-examine the history of this country over the past 100 years. it's quite shocking if you can dig out societal history. This country has abandoned Jesus so that they could get all the free sex they want.

      Example: Abortion: Everyone seems to agree it was for "womens health", I say poppycock. It was so men could have free sex and if the woman got pregnant, well then that little "problem" can be taken care of cheaply. Now he isn't straddled being married or paying child support to the whore you slept with and the bastard child you sired. And yes, men view woment that will have sex with them easily as whores and sluts. They also treat them as such. Can't you see at how often women get treated like that? I am always hearing how horrible men are to women these days. Well, these guys are treating these women the way they see them as.

      Delete
    8. GG, the problem I have with the idea of 'being homosexual isn't a sin, but acting on it is a sin' is that people are born that way.-Ann

      Ann, if you are going to make this statement, please provide proof that people are "born that way and they can't help it". Jeffrey Dahmer being a psycho killer and cannibal was "born that way" and it wasn't his fault. Why on earth did they put him in prison? He committed horrible acts that he LUSTED for. And so do homosexuals. We all actually do things that we lust for.

      If you want to argue that anal sex with frequent partners is pretty much a disaster health-wise, I would agree with you, but it's just as much of a disaster when done by a straight man with numerous women, as it is when done by a gay man with numerous men.-Ann

      I agree with your statement. But I would add one more thing to it. Any kind of sex with multiple partners - women, men, women & men - is detrimental to your health.

      If you want to argue that sex is supposed to be for reproduction only, because the bible says so, you had first of all better show me that you are following ALL of the bible, and secondly, that you are never getting a blow job from your wife and will give up sex completely once she reaches menopause. Otherwise you are just handwaving.-Ann

      I agree here. God made sex within a marriage (and yes it does work best) as the two coming together and becoming one as very pleasureable. It was intended to be that way. Catholic dogma of sex for re-production only is a farce. Making children is a small part of a great sexual experience with your spouse.All sex is good with in a marriage. Oral, vaginal, anal, etc... If both of the people in a marriage want to do something then it is no one elses buisness. Not even the government. God put no limits on what kind of sex or how often a husband and wife can have sex. He limits sex to none if outside of a marriage. The Bible is quite clear on this. But mankind just love to change it to his liking.... Which usually involves lust.

      Delete
    9. **Ann: if you require the permission of the local minister to have sex... basically that makes the minister a pimp and the church the world's largest brothel using enslaved prostitutes

      Apollo: You twist what God says is good and holy. Do you not like how God set things up?**

      Point here, the only thing we know for certain is that certain self-annointed parties CLAIM God set things up that way, and that their permission is required first in order for people to have sex 'legitimately'. My own opinion of God is that God is far better than to set himself up that way, or to make his actual servants into pimps.

      Sometime, take a good hard look at what VD and his ilk have to say. They are first of all thinking about (to put it crudely) one on one man buttsex far more often than most homosexuals actually do. Secondly, they are continually spewing out hatred. They hate gays, they hate women, they hate blacks, now apparently they hate people with Aspberger's syndrome (and were the biblical justification for THAT is, I've no idea). They want to shoot me, poison me, and drag me into the woods to die, for the horrible crime of writing posts longer than they want to read.

      **It was so men could have free sex and if the woman got pregnant, well then that little "problem" can be taken care of cheaply. Now he isn't straddled being married or paying child support to the whore you slept with and the bastard child you sired.**

      The problem with that theory is first of all, a lot of women want sex without consequences, and secondly, men can't really force women to get abortions, so if she wants to soak him for child support, she simply won't get one. It's also not really fun giving birth. Do it often enough and it WILL kill you.

      **Ann, if you are going to make this statement, please provide proof that people are "born that way and they can't help it".**

      Apollo, first of all, I could pose the opposite question, namely that if the church wants to claim that homosexuality is always a 'choice' that the burden of proof should be on them to prove that nobody is EVER born that way. But never mind that for now, there is evidence that at least some people are born that way. Experiments have been done with homosexuals, in which they were given sex pheromones to smell (chemicals given off by men and women) while their brains were being monitored with an MRI and the brains of most homosexuals reacted in the way of that of a member of the opposite gender. That really isn't something you can 'fake' or 'choose', it's indicative that their brain was wired before birth in the way that the member of the opposite gender's should have been.

      ** Jeffrey Dahmer being a psycho killer and cannibal was "born that way" and it wasn't his fault. Why on earth did they put him in prison? He committed horrible acts that he LUSTED for. And so do homosexuals. We all actually do things that we lust for.**

      Jeffrey Dahmer's acts were hurting other people who did not consent to be killed and eaten. If you want to argue that homosexuals who commit RAPE should be punished, I would be the first to agree with you. The question of whether he could help it or not is actually irrelevent. A dog can't help getting rabies. But I would shoot it anyways, because it was dangerous.

      Delete
    10. Apollo, regarding abortion as a means of getting out of a 'problem', or unwanted consequences of sex, I would say that is correct. Most of the time. Sometimes there are other problems, including severe deformity in the fetus, or health problems in the mother. However, that's neither here nor there, people do a lot of things to correct unwanted problems caused by their behavior, such as taking aspirin to get rid of a headache if they drink too much.

      The thing is... religious people (most of them) are basically flat out lying when they claim their reason for wanting abortion is to 'protect the innocent baby'. Partly because an embryo is not a baby, partly because there are some babies (conceived by rape) that they almost always specifically with-hold their protection from, and partly because they are also opposed to birth control. They don't want to 'save the babies', they want to forcibly impose problems on people as punishment for sex. I've little sympathy for that, and less sympathy for lying about it.

      I've also not much sympathy for certain feminists, as I have a rather unique and remarkably unpopular view on allowing both genders equality in being able to 'fix the problem'. Specifically, if a woman gets 6 months to have a 'do-over' regarding sex, and can get an abortion up to 6 months, I think that a MAN should also get 6 months to get a 'do-over', and should have 6 months to be able to legally 'opt out' of supporting that child. And HIS 6 months start when he becomes aware of the pregnancy, so there will be no nonsense about a woman he had a one-night stand with 10 months ago presenting him with a 1 month old baby and a lawyer behind her. If he didn't know she was pregnant, then HIS 6 months start the moment the woman presents him with the baby.

      I imagine that being careless about contraception would become remarkably unpopular among women under this sort of system, and probably drastically reduce the number of abortions.

      Delete
  26. Replies
    1. Don't shut up, Ann. Don't ever shut up. People only seek to silence others when their own beliefs are not strong enough to stand on their own.

      The second real tragedy of VD's site is the number of so called Godly men that haven't got the courage to stand up to him. These men make a point of identifying themselves as Christians, and than proceed to engage in vile and abusive behavior, behavior Jesus Christ never engaged in and would never condone. It's one thing to act like a dick, it's a whole other realm to do so while claiming to represent Christ and His word.

      Delete
    2. I imagine the people on VD's site would be the very first in the lynch mob to demand Christ be crucified, if he ever came back to Earth.

      Delete
    3. Ed wrote: **Shut up, Ann.**

      Yeah. You manly men from the VD site sure are the world's smartest fucking people who know everything about dairy farming (except an actual former dairy farmer says you're full of shit) and know all about chemistry, except you never heard of Avegadro's number, and can't actually disprove anything anyone says that disagrees with you, but sure are good at saying 'shut up', and making obscene references to female anatomy like immature 11 year old boys.

      Here's a hint, Ed, from someone who actually knows math. "A billion billion to one against" sounds real impressive, except that as it happens, that is a very small fraction of Avagadro's number. Which is the number of molecules in about half an ounce of water. If Vox Day actually had an IQ of 149 as he constantly claims, he would know that. Either he's lying about his IQ, or else he's playing all you sheep for fools, who don't actually know anything about mathematics or chemistry.

      Delete
    4. Ann, IQ is only a measurement of potential. It is not a measurement of knowledge. If you never learned about Avagadro's number, then how could you know? My IQ is measured in the 160's. That fact alone doesn't make me smart. I am not very good at debate, I am not that great with history or economics or politics. I am good at my job though. I am also good with computers. I am also good at fixing things for my wife. I don't know squat about "Game". But my wife helps me to keep out of trouble. I go home to her whenever I get off work and I pretty much stay out of trouble. I don't know hardly anything about chemistry. I do know that whatever I set my mind to, I can usually learn and understand. But to say someone should know something because they have a high IQ isn't a good way to measure it.

      At least that is what I think about IQ's and my own experiences.

      Delete
    5. Here's the thing, Apollo. I'm very intelligent. (I'm laughing here because you sometimes can't tell when I'm shrieking hysterically about the internet.) However, I have been taught over and over again that intellectual idolatry is just vanity. It is a sin. Being smart is not a sin, using your brain is not a sin, but idolizing intelligence is and I think VD is a good example of why. He's very intelligent...and sadly lacking in both wisdom and empathy.

      In my own life, the Holy Spirit has always had to sneak in under the radar, under my rational, reasoned mind. He speaks to people's hearts, he communicates on a different level. All this nonsense about Absolute Truth and Objective Reality is just malarkey. Human perception is not reality. We don't know what we think we know, our brains are simply incapable of grasping it all, no matter how intelligent we think we are.

      Delete
    6. When it comes to IQ worship, while being guilty of it myself when I was younger, is just silly. What I have found out is if you like to do something,... You will learn how to do that. Regardless how hard it is or your level of IQ. Everyone has something or better to be more exact - many things we are good at. Use one or two of them to earn a living and the others for fun or relaxation.

      VD lacks in wisdom and empathy?
      I question the wisdom, I have only seen some of his writings. i have never observed him in real life. His empathy? Well I believe he is pretty upfront about that. Calls himself a cruelity artist.

      Delete
    7. Apollo, you wrote: **If you never learned about Avagadro's number, then how could you know?**

      Apollo, first of all, VD has been told FREQUENTLY about Avagadro's number, and other facts of chemistry. He continues to disregard what he is told, ban the people who actually know something about chemistry, and engage in the same handwaving to fool everyone else.

      The thing is... big numbers sound very impressive, and can be used inaccurately to fool people who don't understand the subject matter very well. Claiming that the odds of a chemical reaction are a 'billion-billion' against sounds very impressive. Unless you know what Avagadro's number is (a LOT more molecules just in half an ounce of water than a 'billion-billion'.

      Not that I'm a big fan of L Ron Hubbard, but he touched on this subject in his book 'Battlefeild Earth'. In the book, a highly intelligent and sadistic alien (Terl) was having a conversation with an equally sadistic, but not very smart human. The human was describing how all the people in his tribe were owed a certain amount of money per day, for the past thousand years. The alien (Terl) pretended to be shocked and said "Why that's more than a million!!" To which the human agreed and complained that no-one would pay him. Which told Terl the real information that he was looking for, namely that the human was a fool who couldn't even do math (the amount owed was far, far more than 'a million), and proceeded to use his intelligence to manipulate him.

      I do not for a minute believe that VD does not know what Avagadro's number is, especially since he has been told. He is highly intelligent and using his intelligence to lie to people.

      Not that most of them aren't getting what they deserve, since they've had Avagadro's number explained to them as well, but choose to disregard it, partly because they are mentally lazy and don't want to go to the effort of trying to understand something that takes more than 30 seconds to read, partly because they don't want to give up their particular set of beliefs that allows them to feel holy about hating people.

      Delete
    8. Ann, what does Avagadro's number have to do with all of this? I really don't think this is relavant to my life... is it? Yeah, there are a lot of molecules. But is that even important to me? To what I do? I could study how electrons move because of electricity, but that doesn't help me with what I do. (I am a engineering tech) - Fancy name, meaning we fix systems where engineers made mistakes.

      Delete
    9. Apollo: What Avagadro's number is, is the number of molecules in a mole. Which in water is about half an ounce. What it has to do with all this is that VD likes to throw out what *sounds* like very large odds against life forming by random molecular collisions. His favorite number is that it's a 'billion billion' against. Thus supposedly 'proving' that the odds of life forming by random molecular collisions are 'too high'. Only problem is, there's about 600,000 times that many molecules just in half an ounce of water. Multiply that by the amount of water in the ocean, and the number of molecular collisions per second, times the age of the earth, and VD's 'high' number doesn't seem quite so 'high' anymore.

      ** I could study how electrons move because of electricity, but that doesn't help me with what I do.**

      If somebody is telling you something about electricity, and claim that the behavior of electricity could supposedly only be caused by the 'Electricity fairy', and they deliberately omit telling you how electrons move, and ban anyone from their site who does try to tell you how electrons move, that person is a liar. Mind you, there may or may not be an 'electricity fairy', or a God, but the person is still a liar. God does not tell lies or depend on lies. However, various evil spirits do.

      Delete
  27. Apollo, here's the relevent passage I mentioned from Battlefield Earth:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Back pay?" said Terl. He could understand somebody being concerned about that, but he thought it was a barter system of explosive ingredients for humans.

    "We was hired by the international bank," said Snith. He knew his legends and he knew his rights, and he was very good at trading. Very good indeed. "At one hundred dollars a day per man. We ain't been paid."

    "How many men, how long?" said Terl.

    "I calculate in rough figures one thousand men for, let's say, one thousand years."

    The rapid skill Terl had with mathematics told him this was 36,500 a year per man; 36,500,000 per year for all the men; and 36,500,000,000 in total. But he made a test. "Why," said Terl, in a shocked voice, "that's more than a million!"

    Snith nodded gravely. "Just so! They won't agree to it." This Psychlo knew when he was in a boxed ambush. Maybe he could do business with him after all.

    Terl had his answer. The piece of crap couldn't do common arithmetic!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok.. The jist of it is that you have determined that while VD is intelligent, he lacks on his "wisdom" because you have explained where he was wrong on somethings and he waved his hands, or banned people and continued in his error. You think he is doing it on purpose which is equal to lying.... No?

      Delete
  28. Not speaking for Ann, but what really bothers me is spreading hatred in His name. It drives people away from the church and away from God.

    There's a reason people become devout atheists, there's a reason we have the politics we do, and there's a reason families are on the decline in this country. A big part of those reasons are due to the behavior of many so called Christians.

    A theme in Ann's posts that I also share is a desire for justice, fairness. I serve this God that is so amazingly perfect in both justice and love....and then I keep bumping into Christians who seem to want to promote the exact opposite. They seem to perceive God as some sort of Divine bully, keeping score to make sure His followers are enforcing His codes. I have to laugh, that's not God, that's the Godfather. It's like Christianity as organized crime or something.

    ReplyDelete
  29. More stupidity from Dipshit today

    It should be interesting to see how those who are true believers in both a) the religion of TENS and b) the myth of human equality react to this scientific claim from Penn State that Africans are less evolved than Europeans:

    The claim he cites says nothing of the sort.

    And he's too stupid to realise it.

    Instead, it talks about a single mutation as responsible for a large part of the lighter skin color of Caucasians. Dipshit fails to realise two important points:

    i, Nowhere does the study say this means one group are "less evolved" than others. Every human being on the planet is just "as evolved" as any other - we're all roughly the same number of generations from the first humans.

    ii, Each and every one of us is a mutant - about 100 mutations show up in any individual's genome. It just happens that 10,000 years ago, one person had a highly visible mutation.

    It's not surprising he has to ban people who argue with his - his ego couldn't take people pointing out just how full of shit he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phoenician: From the same post by Vox:

      **There need not be any environmental advantage to lighter skin for it to be preferred. Of course, that would also be a hate fact, as it would be scientific evidence that whites are more attractive than blacks.**

      Phoenician, humans tend to find one (or a combination) of several things 'attractive'. One is resembling an infant. One is having traits associated with good health. One is having traits associated with having money. The latter is why, in the past, men found women who would be considered obese today, to be hotties. Go back a couple centuries, and only the very wealthy ever got fat. Most people were starving, then.

      Since black people are just as healthy as whites, it's possible they may not be considered attractive partly because whites resemble infants more, partly because whites have more wealth.

      But that's neither here nor there, the real question is as to WHY Vox finds it necessary to make this snide little remark at all. Supposedly he is the great champion of virtue and intelligence, which have nothing to do with appearance. Yet he keeps making comments on the appearance of various people, such as this one, and his one of a week or so ago about 'unattractive, overweight women' being 'eager to embrace' some parasitical lifestyle or the other.

      Meh, like I keep saying, he has the maturity of a 9 year old.

      Delete
    2. "Meh, like I keep saying, he has the maturity of a 9 year old."

      You give him too much credit, Ann. Nine year olds tend to have a curiosity and excitement about the world that he does not possess.

      As to the environmental advantage of light skin, in the midst of the dark doldrums of winter, I am once again reminded of the critical need for us to absorb vitamin D.

      Delete
    3. GG, well, 9 year olds tend to have the some of the *worst* traits that VD has, including judging people by their appearance, thinking their pet hates are some sort of great revelation of reality, getting angry at anyone who is able to prove them wrong, and an immature and obscene obsession with sex.

      Delete