Recommended Posts

William wrotes:

Glad you took my last comments on board and had yourself a little two-minute thinkathon, Greg. Hope nothing got strained or out of alignment. Some people enjoy simmering in their own pot of stupid.

You're just doing the same thing that secular leftists do, William. You justify your personal perversion by trotting out victim stories. How shameful. Worshipping victimhood is a pillar of the secular political religion of leftism. I expect no less from you and you never disappoint. :wink:

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 443
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

William has a very keen and sound mind and is a very deep thinker. The only thing he could be accused of is being a bit cynical at times but aren't we all?

Wolf writes:

Earlier I said there is a laissez faire tradition of tolerance with respect to cosmology and sexual preference.

I agree, Wolf.

Just because something is immoral doesn't mean that people shouldn't be free to choose to do it. They get the just and deserved consequences of their actions just like everyone else does.

What crosses the line is when liars promote evil by spreading the lie that it is good and that what is good is evil.

The agenda of the secular political religion of leftism concerning perversion follows this process:

1. You're wrong for not recognizing perversion

2. You're wrong for not tolerating perversion.

3. You're wrong for not accepting perversion.

4. You're wrong for not celebrating perversion.

Presently America is at number 4.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

1. You're wrong for not recognizing individual difference.
2. You're wrong for not tolerating individual difference.

3. You're wrong for not accepting individual difference.

4. You're wrong for not celebrating individual difference.

An individualist might trace the evolution of their individualism as shown above. You seem to be at step 1. I think if you could get past step 1 you would quickly be at step 3.

The important thing about people and their lifestyles and inclinations is:

1. They don't try to kill you.

2. They don't try to take your stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I have absolutely no power to implement public policy concerning the behavior of others, nor would I want it... because people already get exactly what they deserve as the consequences of their own behavior. If people freely choose accept the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS by their immoral behavior, I say let them go ahead and get what they deserve.

So my opinion that perversion is wrong is just that... one man's opinion. It does not mean I seek to control what others choose to do. If people want to engage in that kind of behavior that's their own business, not mine. But in a similar manner you are powerless to make it my business to accept or celebrate perversion.

So that puts me at #2. I recognize that perversion exists and I tolerate it in the lives of immoral secularist libertines where it rigfully belongs...

...but I will neither accept it as being morally right, nor will I ever celebrate what's morally wrong.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just doing the same thing that secular leftists do, William. You justify your personal perversion by trotting out victim stories. How shameful. Worshipping victimhood is a pillar of the secular political religion of leftism. I expect no less from you and you never disappoint.

Hmmmn. Let's see the progression of your comments, and what triggered your knickertwist.

I add a spoiler because the video below may be shocking or upsetting or put someone off their dinner.

So, is it that the existence of XX males and the other maybe jarring oddities/syndromes I mentioned something permanently beyond your comprehension -- or 'made up' by liars? Do you not find the issues of genetic mutation, developmental disorders in humans to be something you could understand if you applied yourself?

Is Klinefelter Syndrome 'evil,' Greg? Is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome 'evil'? Is 5-alpha-reductase deficiency 'evil'? Maybe your God is punishing the children so affected by genetic mutation and developmental disorder for sins of the parents? Is Down's Syndrome 'evil'?

Here's a poser. Let's say your step-daughter gives birth to a baby which appears at birth to be a female of the species, but actually has an intersex condition, or one of the rare genetic anomalies I mentioned above. What would you do when confronted by that kind of reality? Or, let's say that genetic testing during pregnancy showed that the fetus showed evidence of 5-alpha-reductase deficiency? Wouldn't you rather understand the particular individual life-course ahead for that fetus?

Look in your heart, Greg, and have a frank discussion with yourself about that hypothetical.

Honestly, William... the things you won't stoop to in order to promote your behavior.

So, anyone who can read in sequence can appreciate the questions you evaded -- and can come to a conclusion that you might think I have one of the syndromes I have described. You have written above in this thread that a claim of complexity must be a lie, and that those who point out complexities of human development are liars: "Those who tell you issues are "complex" are liars..." and you suggested also that it is impossible for the liars to "promote their perverted behavior without resorting to complexity."

You don't have an answer and you don't apparently have a coherent argument.

Here's Abigail and Brittany. Is their developmental disorder a lie? Is their existence on earth an 'evil'? Is their extremely rare condition a 'perversion'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXE3i1rsmwQ

And now you have transmuted into a flustered scold. You bring up my 'behaviour.' What does my behaviour have to do with the syndromes I brought up? Why have you evaded the straight-up factual matters I brought to the forum's attention? Is this kind of whirling and snarling the best we can expect from your mind when confronted with particular individuals that your God has created?

You go on ... trying to smooch up an ally:

Wolf writes:

Earlier I said there is a laissez faire tradition of tolerance with respect to cosmology and sexual preference.

I agree, Wolf.

Just because something is immoral doesn't mean that people shouldn't be free to choose to do it. They get the just and deserved consequences of their actions just like everyone else does.

Did Abigail and Brittany choose to be the way they emerged from the womb?

Anyway, you poor confused thing. You blow some new smoke to the effect that you should be seen as a wise and tolerant live and let live kind of guy. You say, " I have absolutely no power to implement public policy concerning the behavior of others, nor would I want it... "

Let me remind you of one of your fabulous remarks:

William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

To return to the topic of Laissez-Faire City and constitutions, from one of the preserved webpages:

The LFC Trust was established in January, 1995. The Document of Trust was registered with legal authorities in both Costa Rica and Russia. Initially, approximately a quarter million US dollars were granted to the trust by the Grantors. They elected a professional trustee to administer the Trust for a term of five years. The full administration of the Trustee may be replaced at any time by a majority vote of The Board of Governors. (All Grantors who have each contributed $25,000 or more to the Trust.) In its first year, more Grantors and Founders joined the Trust.

Participants now number in the thousands and revenues are in the millions of US dollars. Growth has been and continues to be expansive.

To avoid gridlock and political infighting which might stem growth of the Trust, absolute power resides with the Trustee for a period of five years. Prior to the end of this term, a constitutional convention shall be held by the participants or their representatives. The convention shall adopt a constitution for LFC.

On January 1, 2000, all political power will pass from the Trust to the newly formed Constitutional Republic of Laissez Faire City.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonathan writes:

Apey thinks that answers and coherent arguments are just a bunch ploys and perversions invented by secular feminized leftists.

Concerning William's comments, that's true.

He lies to convince others that his perversion is good...

...while I convince him that I remain unconvinced by his lies.

Simple as that. :wink:

As for the restraining order... I hold to that view because your perversion wouldn't remain in your own life where it rightfully belongs... but would be spread to poison the lives of children... and that's just plain evil.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan writes:

Apey thinks that answers and coherent arguments are just a bunch ploys and perversions invented by secular feminized leftists.

Concerning William's comments, that's true.

He lies to convince others that his perversion is good...

...while I convince him that I remain unconvinced by his lies.

Simple as that. :wink:

As for the restraining order... I hold to that view because your perversion wouldn't remain in your own life where it rightfully belongs... but would be spread to poison the lives of children... and that's just plain evil.

Greg

No, Apey. You think that the notion of "coherent argument" in itself is a ploy and a perversion invented by secular feminized leftists. That's why you don't make coherent arguments, and why you hate logic. When challenged to defend your positions, and when the illogic of your stupidity is specifically and formally identified, your moronic response is to call formal logic "secular feminized leftist logic," and to then claim that your own method of emotional idiocy in which you avoid logic is "real logic."

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan writes:

Apey thinks that answers and coherent arguments are just a bunch ploys and perversions invented by secular feminized leftists.

Concerning William's comments, that's true.

He lies to convince others that his perversion is good...

...while I convince him that I remain unconvinced by his lies.

Simple as that.

As for the restraining order... I hold to that view because your perversion wouldn't remain in your own life where it rightfully belongs... but would be spread to poison the lives of children... and that's just plain evil.

No, Apey. You think that the notion of "coherent argument" in itself is a ploy and a perversion invented by secular feminized leftists. That's why you don't make coherent arguments, and why you hate logic. When challenged to defend your positions, and when the illogic of your stupidity is specifically and formally identified, your moronic response is to call formal logic "secular feminized leftist logic," and to then claim that your own method of emotional idiocy in which you avoid logic is "real logic."

The points I make above on genetic mutations and developmental disorders have sweet fuck all to do with my 'perversion.' It isn't about me. That is what I find so sad.

I tried to wake up the heart and mind connection in Greg, to help him see what other folks see and have seen: sometimes babies are born and develop in rare and unusual ways. It happens whether Greg looks away or not. It boggles my mind that he schmoozes it all together and then transmutes it into William's dangerous-to-children 'perversion.' I can't help but conclude that Greg does not want to think. That is a terrible conclusion to make, because he certainly can apply logic to his very successful and complex plumbing and wiring projects.

I just don't understand why he doesn't think about the issues and facts I raised above, without lurching into ridiculous charges and claims. It makes me sad for him.

If one believes in a perfect loving God, then what are the lessons or what is to be learned about these people and their conditions? It is as if Greg just rolled his eyeballs past some real-world facts -- and pretended that they do not exist. Did God make the sisters that share one body? Did God punish the two young women? Did God intend for these two to give a lesson to believers? If any of these questions be answered yes, by Greg, we might get an interesting discussion. If Greg could grapple with the world as it is -- even 'defectives' and 'perversions' -- we could get somewhere.

What is Greg afraid of here? He is afraid, maybe, to face up to facts that contradict his initial beliefs and judgments. As here, hard and cold facts of reality are swept from the table, labelled 'lies' and made a function of some target's evil personality. That debases the very thing that tends to unite us here despite our disagreements -- Reason. Sweeping denunciations of lies/liars simply do not do the job of grappling with reality and the puzzles of life.

William has a very keen and sound mind and is a very deep thinker. The only thing he could be accused of is being a bit cynical at times but aren't we all?

-- Jules, thanks for that kind rejoinder. I don't understand what Greg is doing here sometimes, what his motives are. The best I can come up with is that Objectivist Living is his only outlet for vituperation, for I can't imagine he would be so foolishly belligerent in face-to-face encounters.

Greg, do you have any opinions about the two young women who share a body? I think those opinions would be much more interesting to your readers than excursions into personalities, especially given your beliefs in a transcendent spirit of infinite grace and mercy.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

One assumes the Old Testament isn't a pack of lies.

Huh? Undoubtedly it's a pack of lies, "mystical codswallop that was written before men knew the elements of chemistry, physics, or human anatomy. The Word of God, as preachers call it, is the bluster of ancient con artists, concocted to exert power over ignorant tribesmen and slaves." [Laissez Faire Law, p.121]

Link to post
Share on other sites

My statement meant it illustrated God's imperfection and certainly didn't illustrate God's love for humanity. Of course the Bible is full of lies, but the stories told don't tell us of a perfect God, only an all powerful one. Why is the Bible lies? There is no such thing as a Supreme Being nor any rational reason to think or believe otherwise, the incredible complexity of DNA notwithstanding.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

One assumes the Old Testament isn't a pack of lies.

Huh? Undoubtedly it's a pack of lies, "mystical codswallop that was written before men knew the elements of chemistry, physics, or human anatomy. The Word of God, as preachers call it, is the bluster of ancient con artists, concocted to exert power over ignorant tribesmen and slaves." [Laissez Faire Law, p.121]

Heh. Now you're opposed to bluster and con artists, and concerned about victims of scams? Hahahaha!!! Make up your mind.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

William writes:

The points I make above on genetic mutations and developmental disorders have sweet fuck all to do with my 'perversion'

In my opinion they do, William...

...or you would be expending so much energy googling them to try to legitimize your own behavior. But that's what liberals do, so there are no surprises here.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wit or wits, Jules. Greg gas a straight arm that doesn't quit. You cannot engage him so you cannot slay him.

--Brant

Geez Brant, he's Canadian...

running-back-animated.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now