tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post2109318139695333800..comments2024-03-27T23:28:20.274-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Ohio court to queer couples: Drop dead (from viral loads)agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-56077961657508320002014-11-19T01:53:33.579-05:002014-11-19T01:53:33.579-05:00I come back to this place after a week and a half,...I come back to this place after a week and a half, and there's 96 comments... no way I'm reading this. I did pick up from skimming that the High Arka commenter is a homo troll, and will delete further comments.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-13854639521886183622014-11-18T19:51:35.369-05:002014-11-18T19:51:35.369-05:00"It's sad that you're not interested ..."It's sad that you're not interested in attempting to understand the nuances and implications of this discussion. Don't you think that would result in you missing out on a lot of things? <br /><br />You didn't answer the question about post-menopausal women, so I suppose an older married couple with children is disgusting for still making love to each other in their old age. (I disagree with you, but at least you're being logically consistent.) "<br /><br />O.K., I tried, I really tried. Everyone else had your number but I thought there might be some utility in discussing these issues with you. Now I understand that Udolopho was right -- you are just not right in the head.<br /><br />If you do have a lucid moment, please go back and read my previous comments and you'll see that I've answered all your questions already -- older married couples having sex (even after the woman has experience menopause) is perfectly consistent with the natural law because those couples aren't doing anything to violate the natural end of their sexual organs.<br /><br />Likewise, because man is a rational animal it is perfectly consistent for him to build and use tools to aid him in his natural functions.<br /><br />Again, I said this already and if you were paying attention you would be asking me better questions.<br /><br />Good luck to you -- our conversation is over.Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11876316439017059512014-11-17T23:50:13.690-05:002014-11-17T23:50:13.690-05:00It's sad that you're not interested in att...It's sad that you're not interested in attempting to understand the nuances and implications of this discussion. Don't you think that would result in you missing out on a lot of things? <br /><br />You didn't answer the question about post-menopausal women, so I suppose an older married couple with children is disgusting for still making love to each other in their old age. (I disagree with you, but at least you're being logically consistent.) <br /><br />So, since people shouldn't act in ways not in accordance with their purpose of procreation, what other "unnatural" behaviors should they shun? Cooking food? Are you one of the "paleo-diet" people, who thinks it is unnatural, unhealthy, or disgusting to eat food that isn't "raw"? <br /><br />I ask you this, then--chimpanzees will eat bugs raw. They'll kill and eat monkeys, raw. Sure, it's natural, but if humans developed the ability to cook meat, it allowed them to fall ill less often from infected meat. Wouldn't you say that helped us procreate more, rather than hindered us? Even though it's "unnatural" and "not part of the ends of our essence" as far as being biological animals on planet Earth? <br /><br />I know that charring the meat of dead animals using fire, then consuming it, is not a naturally-occurring process, but isn't it okay for some of us to eat cooked meat? High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-10524601092030133242014-11-17T23:26:48.967-05:002014-11-17T23:26:48.967-05:00High Arka,
You are a piece of work. First of all...High Arka,<br /><br />You are a piece of work. First of all, I have never appealed to disgust like some of the other commenters. True, I agree with them, but my arguments don't rest or fall on issues related to disgust -- so for you to bring up the issue -- it is a red herring.<br /><br />Second, I never cited an "intangible moral authority" -- I tried (perhaps I failed, but I tried) to use "well-reasoned, logical arguments" with you. Of necessity, they will be limited in comboxes -- these are not the places for detailed and extensive give and take, attempting to understand each nuance of an argument and all of its implications.<br /><br />Which leads me to my final response -- dealing with the classic objections to the natural law understanding and teaching around the issue of not being able to use one's sexual powers to their final end (i.e. reproduction) for whatever natural reason. Please note, the key is natural -- as long as you are not purposely denying those powers, you are not perverting the natural ends of your sexual nature. Here is philosopher Ed Feser with some more detail:<br /><br />"A rational agent who chooses to pursue the ends that his essence determines are good for him is to that extent morally good, while a rational agent who chooses to pursue that which is contrary to these ends is to that extent morally bad...Now, the way this gets worked out so as to provide us with moral guidance on specific issues is complicated, and much depends on various concrete details of human nature and the physical, cultural, and historical circumstances in which human beings find themselves. (I discuss the implications for private property and related issues in the article linked to, and the implications for sexual morality in chapter 4 of The Last Superstition.) But “perverted faculty” arguments for certain moral conclusions fall out as a natural consequence of the general principles already described. The basic idea is that when some faculty F is natural to a rational agent A and by nature exists for the sake of some end E (and exists in A precisely so that A might pursue E), then it is metaphysically impossible for it to be good for A to use F in a manner contrary to E. For the good of a thing is determined by the end which it has by nature. F exists for the sake of E, and agents like A naturally possess F precisely so that they might pursue E. Hence (given the underlying metaphysics) it cannot possibly be good to use F for the sake of preventing the realization of E, or for the sake of an end which has an inherent tendency to frustrate the realization of E. Hence (to cite the best-known applications of this reasoning) it cannot possibly be good to use our sexual faculties in a way that positively frustrates their procreative end."Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-56287782618719471742014-11-17T20:25:46.801-05:002014-11-17T20:25:46.801-05:00Mr. Herzog,
Masturbation is an interesting issue...Mr. Herzog, <br /><br />Masturbation is an interesting issue for you to raise, because regular ejaculation is healthy for men. If a man can't find a suitable sex partner for marriage and/or reproduction, should he forgo masturbation for moral reasons, even though this may lead to him becoming less-potent a few years earlier in life, and unable to impregnate the wife he finally meets at a later age? <br /><br />Similarly, is it wrong for people who know they are sterile to have sex? Should a woman born barren never know physical love? Is she a leprous pariah who cannot be touched, because to do so would be "disgusting"? <br /><br />What about a woman whose uterus was damaged in a car accident when she was 10? Now that she's grown up, a man having sex with her is as unnatural and disgusting as having sex with another man, because there's an equal chance--<b>0.0%</b>--of that use of sex organs for procreation. <br /><br />Post-menopausal women who still make love to their husbands and the fathers of their children, or Catholic couples with six children deliberately using the rhythm method to avoid another pregnancy--similarly disgusting, right? A pregnant young bride making love to her husband so that she feels attractive despite being pregnant? Zero chance of procreation. <br /><br />Your standards make all those things disgusting, too. They may be "less disgusting" than homosexual sex (if you permit yourself the authority to assign "degrees of disgust" to disgusting, unnatural acts), but they're still in violation of the principle of procreation that you have established as a standard. <br /><br />Is your standard correct? Or did you mean to make it more clear using right reason, so that thirty-nine-year-old women who still love their husbands and the fathers of their children can make love to them without being disgusting? <br /><br />You say that your conclusions are "obvious to all," but they're clearly not, right? After all, there are people like [the person everyone here thinks I am because I dared to ask questions], to whom it's not obvious. <br /><br />You might well be in the minority, now in 2014, when humanity has at its command more science and power than it has ever had. Certainly after another generation is raised by pro-gay public schools, you'll be in the minority, in a country full of adults who thinks that being anti-gay is "disgusting and perverse," while gay sex is "natural and healthy." <br /><br />So, I suggest that you come up with a better way to explain your feelings than by citing to an intangible moral authority. Your only way to win over the thinkers of the future will be by using well-reasoned, logical arguments, instead of tautologies that rely on the genetic superiority of those "born with a proper sense of disgust." Like Calvinism, your perspective may go all but extinct, if you're not able and willing to properly explain it. <br /><br />Think of me less as all of the disgusting things other commenters have said of me, and imagine that, maybe, I'm actually on your side, trying to help you make your claims more effectively. If you rely only on bandwagons, and "everybody knows" arguments, you're left powerless to argue against vast social majorities. <br /><br />If you were the last person left in an insane world, and no one felt as you did, you should still be able to explain, with reason alone, why your ideas were proper. <br /><br />I can explain things like that, using reason alone. You should be able to, too. See <a href="http://higharka.blogspot.com/2014/09/rhino-love-mtr-transspecies-operations.html" rel="nofollow">Rhino Love: MTR Transspecies Operations and Cyclical Social Rebellions.</a> High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65569364760622622672014-11-17T19:42:27.943-05:002014-11-17T19:42:27.943-05:00"It seems as though you're arguing from a..."It seems as though you're arguing from a perspective of popular evolutionary biology, rather than from one of intelligent design. Is that correct? "<br /><br />No, I'm just arguing from the perspective of right reason. How and why we came to have the sex organs we do is not my concern at this particular point -- I'm simply arguing that it is obvious to all that based on the design of the sex organs they are for procreation. Therefore, if you believe (as I do) that one should not use one's body in ways in which it was not designed to be used (whoever designed it or however it came to be designed that way) then one should not engage in any form of homosexuality. <br /><br />Of course, this also means no masturbation -- but that is a topic for another day.<br /><br />Again, if you want to learn more about the natural moral law, I gave you good references.Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-40499385916882971972014-11-17T08:49:56.146-05:002014-11-17T08:49:56.146-05:00Feryl - You were right, he is a troll.
High Akra ...Feryl - You were right, he is a troll.<br /><br />High Akra - I don't want to respond to your hypothetical questions any more either, because they are getting increasingly creepy. It's not that I am afraid to face the "uncomfortable truths" that you are raising, but because your examples are just creepy. <br /><br />For example, if a technology were developed which permits birth outside the uterus, why does homosexuality logically follow from that? Why can't men continue to have sex with, women, while leaving procreation to the robots?<br /><br />Lastly, one piece of unsolicited advice - I'm no psychologist, but there is obviously a lot of projection going on here. You talk about antibacterial soap and the like because you are revolted by the act of male homosexual sex, even as you find it enticing. This obviously causes you a lot of psychic conflict. I think this is normal - most people are revolted by gay sex. If you find something revolting, and the are experiencing increasing levels of psychic turmoil as a result, the solution is to stop doing whatever causes that revulsion. <br /><br />You (and most gay men) know that sex with women is an option. You're capable of it. You'd enjoy it. It might require a level of emotional intimacy that makes you uncomfortable right now. But it'll be much more satisfying in the end. I hope that someday you find a nice woman, marry her, and grow old with her. That's a much better option than the gay lifestyle, or a phony gay "marriage" that is a twisted imitation of the real thing. The disgust will vanish and you'll be much happier. Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-64504898689123033802014-11-17T01:25:00.407-05:002014-11-17T01:25:00.407-05:00I imagine you spend a lot of time thinking about r...I imagine you spend a lot of time thinking about robots and wishing you were one.Udolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-62955668889358452022014-11-16T18:36:06.607-05:002014-11-16T18:36:06.607-05:00Udolpho,
(1) I presume you're aware that in ...Udolpho, <br /><br />(1) I presume you're aware that in the Soviet Union, a disbelief in communism was defined as a deviance, and a mental illness, and treated as such? You would also probably be more comfortable in Russia than in America, now, as Russia has an official attitude toward homosexuality more in line with your own views. <br /><br />As the Silent Generation would call it, you're sounding a little Pink. As the Boomers would say, "Go back to Russia!" <br /><br />(2) In a hundred years, when gay robots take over the world, and you're the deviant one, will you be comfortable being shunned and reeducated because of your non-adaptive failure to learn that gay sex and industrial baby factories is a more efficient method of reproduction than fluid-exchange humping away at a snatch that spends twenty percent of its time bleeding dead, infectious chunks of placenta? <br /><br />The Walmart Baby Center™ has only a 0.00001% error rate in reproducing children based on their parents' genetic profiles, whereas "human women" regularly miscarry, killing the baby and/or themselves. So now you're the deviant one, and as a member of a 5% minority that the medical community considers freakish for its refusal to adapt to modern science, how comfortable are you moving in with a male partner and refusing to ever endanger the human race again by actually coupling with a woman? <br /><br />My guess is, you're not that comfortable with it. You'd probably prefer that other people mind their own fucking business, go to their disgusting artificial "baby factory," and let you and your wife do whatever you feel like doing on your own. High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-56503322930438834262014-11-16T18:24:46.414-05:002014-11-16T18:24:46.414-05:00Fake Herzog,
It seems as though you're argui...Fake Herzog, <br /><br />It seems as though you're arguing from a perspective of popular evolutionary biology, rather than from one of intelligent design. Is that correct? <br /><br />It would be ironic, given the ways that neoliberal evolutionary biology has been used to justify most of the things you guys seem to dislike on this blog--polarization of wealth; commodification of human lives; different classes financially isolating themselves with a "devil may care" attitude for the choices of others in society--but your arguments against homosexual behavior seem to be rooted around the idea that sex is "for reproduction," and that homosexuality is therefore disgusting because it is somehow "anti reproduction." <br /><br />Do I have that right? Or are you a believer in intelligent design, and I just missed something somewhere? High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-55559726839095118352014-11-16T14:30:09.337-05:002014-11-16T14:30:09.337-05:00High Arka,
I can't say whether or not you are...High Arka,<br /><br />I can't say whether or not you are schizophrenic, but regardless, you seem to be having an episode of relative sanity so I thought I would go ahead and respond to your additional questions:<br /><br />1) "Are all things which violate design wrong?" -- Man is the only rational animal, so we are the only one concerned with morality. When it comes to our natural functions, I would generally say yes, although one can imagine extreme scenarios in which it might be necessary to sacrifice a limb, for example. to save another person's life.<br /><br />The specific examples you list are all non-sequiturs -- they are examples of men using their intelligence in a way that is perfectly consistent with the brain's design. In other words, we are a creature that creates and uses tools so of course we might go exploring the world and universe using those tools we build, etc.<br /><br />2) "How do we know that humans were not designed for male/male sex?" Our sex organs serve a specific purpose -- to create new life. As for why certain people have a desire to use them for perverted purposes -- think of it this way. Some people are born with only one arm or are missing fingers. Does that mean that we should say it is "natural" for the human body to have both one arm or two? No, it means that sometimes there are defects in the body -- defects we can detect by referring back to the proper form (a body with two arms). So in one sense, you are correct that it is 'natural' for people to have defects (born with missing limbs, born with retardation, born with other genetic diseases, etc.) -- but we can also figure out, again using right reason, what is the correct use and form of the human body versus the defect.<br /><br />More on this subject here:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html <br /><br />M,<br /><br />Anyone who thinks the world is just made up of chemistry and physics does deserve a lulz!!!!!!!!!!!!Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-57023736337973440942014-11-16T13:29:35.403-05:002014-11-16T13:29:35.403-05:00Disgust is a relevant factor because you have to e...Disgust is a relevant factor because you have to explain why the disgust exists. It's not random. It's most often an adaptation that keeps us safe, and as Haidt notes can have a protective social property. It's also culturally bound--we find eating dogs disgusting, whereas Koreans do not (they're filthy gooks).<br /><br />Keep in mind Western society is undergoing rapid demographic change (less European ancestry), therefore what is disgusting is often in a state of flux and a subject of contention between groups.<br /><br />Homosexuality, like other paraphilias, has much more obvious problems than that many people find the acts personally revolting. I've noted several of these but there is a lot else documented here: http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/6651-the-institute-for-advanced-homophobia. The takeaway is that paraphilia does not exist in isolation, it is nearly always associated with psychological problems that inhibit healthy emotional attachments. Gay subculture and its propagation of deviance could supply an entire blog's worth of material by itself. People who think of homosexuality as "just an orientation" either don't know about a lot of homosexual behavior or they can't parse it due to stunted emotional growth.Udolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-17281745633807966442014-11-16T05:55:13.896-05:002014-11-16T05:55:13.896-05:00TBH, Joe Schmo's view (although incredibly lon...TBH, Joe Schmo's view (although incredibly long winded, and replying to a tendentious best case scenario with a tendentious worst case scenario so I read little of it) is closer to my own than starting from disgust, having a freak out and then failing to justify yourself. <br /><br />Disgust isn't really a justification in itself, but it orients us to think about the disease risks associated with gay sex, and the fact that gay relationships don't lead to family life.<br /><br />If we found ourselves in some sci-fi world where disease risks weren't present and gay guys could somehow have a family life (exo wombs or something), it wouldn't be important (lol at natural law that exists independent of physics, chemistry). That would be a better world than the one we have, just as a world where Blacks scored the same on the IQ test as Whites. But we don't live there. <br /><br />Disgust is a pointer towards real moral concerns for integrity (people living well) and harm (people not suffering), not really a justification in itself. Note in Haidt's schema the disgust reflex is an evolved basis for and pointer to purity / sanctity concerns, not equated with it. The idea that "Oh, Haidt or whoever told us that disgust is a sufficient moral base on its own" is just dumb. You can't just stop at disgust, like an animal or a child, and then cease to think and feel more deeply.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-76813075161154259132014-11-16T01:17:26.796-05:002014-11-16T01:17:26.796-05:00High Arka was caught pretending to be a woman:
He...High Arka was caught pretending to be a woman:<br /><br /><i>He had to change his profile to say he was a woman because he had lied over at IBTP, saying he was a Latina woman. The weird part was when he then got offended when someone else used the term Latina. Then the even weirder part was when a few radfem commenters actually started sticking up for him and his racism and misogyny. I hate to pinch myself to make sure I was awake and not stuck in a nightmare by the time that rolled around.</i><br />http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2012/06/04/the-difference-between-me-and-twisty-faster/#comment-55090<br /><br />He's a complete kook as is evident by his blog which reads like something you'd see in a schizophrenic's case history.Udolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-78414023903374635672014-11-16T00:40:09.528-05:002014-11-16T00:40:09.528-05:00Thank you, Fake Herzog. Okay, so you've suppl...Thank you, Fake Herzog. Okay, so you've supplied two answers: one is, "The example is impossible," which doesn't address what would be moral if the example did actually occur, and the other is an actual example: "their bodies were not designed for" male/male sex. <br /><br />So that's the only non-tautological addressing of the topic that we have. It's an appropriate counter to the point you all feel that I implied by asking an open-ended question. It gives an actual <b>reason</b> for why such an encounter would be wrong--because the encounter "violates design." <br /><br />The logical premise is: <br /><br />Premise: Acts which violate a thing's design are wrong. <br /><br />Premise: Humans were not designed for male/male sex. <br /><br />Conclusion: Therefore, male/male sex is wrong. <br /><br />The rest of you take note--that's an example of a coherent logical response. <br /><br />Now, Herzog, that line of reasoning raises a lot of interesting issues: <br /><br />1) Are all things which violate design wrong? If not, then why is male/male sex one of the small subset of things which is wrong because it violates design? What distinguishes this design violation from others? <br /><br />For example, are humans designed to travel into space? No. Then are all astronauts disgusting? <br /><br />Are humans designed to travel at Mach 1? No. Then are all jet-fighter pilots disgusting? <br /><br />Are humans designed to live in Arctic environments? No. Then are all Inuit disgusting? <br /><br />Are humans designed to eat animals whose God-given genetic sequences have been perverted by usurers splicing pieces of one kind in with pieces of another? No. Then is Monsanto evil? <br /><br />As you may know, there were people who thought that railroads were an evil invention, because humans were not designed to travel that fast. Were those people right, or wrong? <br /><br />2) How do we know that humans were not designed for male/male sex? Agnostic makes the case that homosexuality may be caused by a pathogen, which pathogen apparently affects a lot of people. <br /><br />Was that pathogen designed? Who designed it? If the pathogen was designed by the same entity that designed humanity, and the pathogen was designed to infect humanity and cause homosexuality as a result, then aren't some humans designed for male/male sex? <br /><br />Some animals engage in homosexual behavior. Were they designed for it? <br /><br />Homosexual behavior does not produce offspring. Neither does men and women coupling at the wrong time of the month, or post-menopausal/barren/sterile men or women coupling ever again. If they do it anyway, or if a married couple wears a condoms or times their encounters to avoid pregnancy, are these acts similarly unnatural and disgusting? High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-65830683394521463872014-11-15T23:09:03.053-05:002014-11-15T23:09:03.053-05:00"Do you have any reasons for your conclusions..."Do you have any reasons for your conclusions other than your apparent genetic superiority in being able to feel instinctual revulsion? "<br /><br />See my answer to your question at 10:13 AM this morning. I tried to keep it short and sweet -- of course there are whole philosophical books about the natural moral law and why you should take it seriously, so I doubt I'll convince you in a combox.<br /><br />However, in case you do want to learn a thing or two, I would recommend starting this this book:<br /><br />http://www.undergroundthomist.org/book/on-the-meaning-of-sex <br /><br />Enjoy!Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-6332091898827207502014-11-15T22:57:35.891-05:002014-11-15T22:57:35.891-05:00lmao at this bawling nerdlmao at this bawling nerdUdolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-11148541217775099262014-11-15T22:57:19.557-05:002014-11-15T22:57:19.557-05:00Agnostic, please banish this troll who's wasti...Agnostic, please banish this troll who's wasting our time. In case anyone doesn't realize it, I'll point out again that this busybody is not contributing anything of value thus making him a troll. Please stop giving him the attention he craves.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-22740530855659985342014-11-15T18:01:46.493-05:002014-11-15T18:01:46.493-05:00I understand that you guys are a very cohesive gro...I understand that you guys are a very cohesive group, and that you have very strong beliefs. What I was hoping is that someone could give me a non-tautological explanation of the reasons for your beliefs. <br /><br />If it's wrong because it's wrong, and everyone knows that because it's the case, and it's the case because it's wrong, and it's wrong because it's wrong, then are those who aren't born with the predisposition to understand its wrongness unable to ever understand it? <br /><br />Do you have any reasons for your conclusions other than your apparent genetic superiority in being able to feel instinctual revulsion? <br /><br />Keep in mind: <br /><br />1) I acknowledge that you outnumber me in this forum; <br /><br />2) I acknowledge that you all have special superior knowledge which I do not possess; <br /><br />3) I acknowledge that you belong to a subculture that considers the questioning of its mores to be an idiotic and/or humorous act; <br /><br />4) I acknowledge that your culture is so transcendent that it need not explain itself because it is evident to everyone special enough to understand it. <br /><br />So that stuff's all covered. I completely understand that part. But is there any way at all that you can translate your feelings into rational arguments? <br /><br />Why don't you take a few posts, first, and devote them entirely to attacking me. Conclude that I'm a gay, stupid, diseased, inferior being, inherently incapable of logic, and tell funny stories about all the bad things I do. And then, once you've gotten it out of your systems, try to squeeze out just a few lines where you address the topic itself. Even if I'm not smart enough to understand it, wouldn't it help you to be able to logically express your viewpoints by means other than an appeal to supernatural authority? High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-81773826264278837502014-11-15T17:20:45.484-05:002014-11-15T17:20:45.484-05:00Joe Schmoe
Poignant and we'll said. In life, ...Joe Schmoe <br />Poignant and we'll said. In life, painting a picture as you just did is how I've gotten through to a few people who don't have those rich emotions. Liberals being more clueless, a touch autistic relatively, is one of the most profound, yet stunningly simple insights Agnostic came up with. <br />Our interloper may not be reachable now, but others are and I encourage the others to take the tact you just did. <br /><br />Udolpho is the funniest man on the Internet. Dahlianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-47446065315890997872014-11-15T12:13:42.831-05:002014-11-15T12:13:42.831-05:00High Arka,
I'll take up your challenge in a m...High Arka,<br /><br />I'll take up your challenge in a minute, I just want to note that I took a peek at your blog and you are clearly a deranged, left-wing, communist mad-man bent on the destruction of all that is good and true.<br /><br />Having said that, while I think Udolpho makes good points in response to you; I don't think his latest comment deal directly with your ridiculous scenario only because you stipulate from the outset that after the one same-sex encounter Frank goes on to lead a 'normal', fulfilling life. <br /><br />Unlike Udolpho (or perhaps this is what he did mean to say) I would go ahead and make the stronger claim that your story is silly and there are no real-world examples of such a nature, despite what you claim. Furthermore, as agnostic and others have shown, the exact opposite is clearly true -- same-sex behavior is indeed associated with all sorts of pathologies (which makes sense given that such behavior is probably driven by a virus in the first place) and not good for social health.<br /><br />But back to your challenge -- the simple answer for why Frank and Eugene should not give in to their same-sex urges is that their bodies were not designed for such sex and they should be guided by the telos of their sexuality -- we are creatures with a purpose in life and our sex and sexuality fits into that purpose. Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-29884135934544209402014-11-15T12:12:20.574-05:002014-11-15T12:12:20.574-05:00Udolpho, there's no sense in reasoning with th...Udolpho, there's no sense in reasoning with this diva. Either he's sincerely delusional or a meddling troll. That's the last thing I've got to say in this thread that's mutated into a drama queen browbeating everyone into accepting perversion.<br /><br />I bet he's trying to lure people onto his blog, which I've avoided looking at and never will look at.<br />Joe Bob says don't check out H Arka's blog.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-77825049882837193202014-11-15T11:26:12.409-05:002014-11-15T11:26:12.409-05:00So, to you, the example is impossible. It's li...<i>So, to you, the example is impossible. It's like saying, "If there were a five-sided square..." or "If red were blue, then..."</i><br /><br />You have severe reading comprehension problems. Nowhere do I say the scenario you depict is impossible. What I argue is that the behavior is clearly indicative of mental illness--inability to form healthy emotional bonds, unconcern for the effect of one's actions on others, strongly self-destructive behavior. How do we know this is unhealthy (the same behavior would be unhealthy in heterosexuals as well)? Because it disturbs or thwarts mechanisms required for a human being to maintain stable psychological development. It's that simple.<br /><br />Speaking of which, talk to your doctor about autistic spectrum disorder treatment options.<br />Udolphohttp://mpcdot.com/forumsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-18370682434796784802014-11-15T09:57:22.799-05:002014-11-15T09:57:22.799-05:00We've dignified this High Arka with way too mu...We've dignified this High Arka with way too much attention and effort. As Udolpho said, you either get it or don't. To demand in explanation for basic moral values is itself proof of how ignorant and naive someone must be.<br /><br />A society's health and security is predicated on stable families which require loving, monogamous relations between the husband and wife.<br /><br />That some people nowadays are so willing to rationalize terrible behavior is another symptom of the current cycle of decadent narcissism, in which anything goes and nothing matters.<br /><br />I don't run this blog and I can't control what people do on it, but I would appreciate not encouraging this thorn in our side who's trolling is obvious and not worth our time. We've provided every conceivable basis for our viewpoints but he keeps screaming in our face to do more for him.<br /><br />Let's stop taking the bait, shall we?<br /><br />Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-59065766547525463982014-11-15T07:45:50.150-05:002014-11-15T07:45:50.150-05:00Frank pretends that everything is great, and that ...Frank pretends that everything is great, and that his kids "enjoy" visiting him in the city and sharing his new life, which means having brunch at the latest trendy restaurant in the gay district. But the truth is that the weekends with Frank are horrible. His kids love him, but they would give ANYTHING to go back to the old days when their family was intact and their dad lived with them. <br /><br />Of course the kids have terrible emotional problems due to the divorce. they become angry and start acting out emotionally. Their grades fall and their behavioral problems increase dramatically. These emotional problems only intensify as they get older. Frank's oldest son is 12 when the divorce happens, and the turmoil it causes prevents him from dating or forming relationships. Frank's daughter develops a thing for older guys when she gets older. But I don't want to talk about this too much because it is so disturbing.<br /><br />In my view, this is what really happens when a middle-aged husband and father decides that he's gay. It's a much more accurate scenario than the one you posed, in which the wife "fingered herself." And it's terribly, terribly harmful. If Frank cheats on his wife with another man, the fact that both Frank and his fuck buddy are STD-free and use antibacterial soap aren't important. The disgusting part is what happens to Frank's wife and kids. <br /><br />If you knew a guy whose marriage survived the fact that he cheated on his wife with a another man, that's wonderful. I'm glad to hear that a marriage is still intact. This is not as uncommon as you might think for a marriage to survive infidelity, it is obviously not something that people talk about, but it happens. The thing is, I guarantee that the wife was terribly hurt and devastated by her husband's infidelity, and is probably still deeply hurt by it. She's also frightened and insecure now - what if he does it again? What if he gives her AIDS or herpes? The whole dynamic of their relationship has changed, and not for better, she suspects him now and has to watch him closely. I guarantee that she she thinks of her husband's infidelity with another man she does so with deep sadness and disgust, she does not "finger herself."Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.com