You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2006.

And as if we hadn’t been through this movie a thousand times before, I do nothing but try to catch up as the most important deadlines pass by. Ugh. Anyways, with a little bit of luck, not too late. Will know by the end of the summer. Lots of very important stuff hanging in suspense.

From ACE thread:

It’s a stupid game — chasing each other on an open field, kicking a ball — perfect for little children and retarded adults.

Actually that is not stupid at all – playing soccer is great fun; but watching soccer will usually make you go bonkers with boredom. They need to change things to make the game more dynamic and allow for more goals.

What is extremely stupid, however, is the fact that you have children (20 year old children) who do nothing but kick around this little ball and who get 10 million bucks for it. And if you want to start a program to fight violence against children, there’s no money. If you want to prevent elderly abuse, there’s no money. If you want to fight a thousand of ills, there’s no money.

And the entire financial structure of soccer teams in countries where soccer is big business is one putrid corrupt quicksand. Too much money for a bunch of stupid, no-good little boys.

And just to pre-empt the forthcoming tangential retort, I am not saying this is only a problem in soccer -but that’s the subject at hand.

It’s not so much the game that stinks, it’s everything that touches money around it.

And then you get these horrid attitudes from little millionaire celebrity players who are treated like superheros for their stupid little soccer talent. In other words, morons clap at morons. And waste money that could be put to much better use.

Yesterday I watched my first game of the World Cup, because I had tried watching a few bits of previous games and just stopped because they were so dreadfully boring. “Spain vs. Tunisia” was quite dynamic and had very interesting moments, enought to actually allow one to enjoy some of the game, although at 1 hour and so many minutes, it got to be too long. But overall it was nice. I have absolutely no favorite team at this point. Maybe as it gets closer to the finals I will start rooting for someone, or most probably, start rooting against one or more teams. 😉 That’s even more fun. 😉

Thank you for writing something I’ve often thought about, although not exactly as described below. And all of this relates to an idea of founding my own church, or theology if you will – since there isn’t one that matches my knowledge and beliefs – and I find all that is spiritual or psychology precepts-related that I’ve come into contact with have things that I share and others that I find profoundly problematic or misguided.

The situation in contemporary America and the West is very similar. The religious leader may present a biblical story in a sermon. But he/she is typically unwilling or unable to apply it to the real-life problems of a member of his/her congregation. If someone approaches a religious leader with a serious personal problem, the leader is likely to refer to a card in the upper right-hand drawer of his desk with the phone number of a local psychotherapist. The therapist, however, is largely ignorant of, if not antagonistic to religion, often in a manner incongruent with the patient’s own orientation.

Several studies, for example, have found that 90 percent of patients believe in a transcendent God, compared to only about 40 percent of clinical psychologists. This is a huge disconnect! Most mental health professionals generally avoid any reference to, or recognition of their patient’s religious beliefs and the deep influence of these beliefs on patients’ lives. Few mental health professionals fully incorporate a patient’s religious beliefs into a treatment plan.

Likewise, although nearly 90 percent of all Americans will contend with at least one significant mental-health problem during their adult lives, only a handful of religious leaders have been trained to provide even basic mental health care. This “disconnect” seems most evident when a single parishioner or parish family approaches a religious leader for help with a mental-health issue. Few religious leaders feel comfortable in this area, and most generally refer the matter to someone in the mental-health profession.

There are a number of possible reasons why mental-health professionals are resistant toward religion, while religious leaders are resistant to the insights and findings of the mental-health field. For one, the fields of religion and mental health have historically been in conflict with each other, with psychology/psychiatry allying itself to science and medicine. Secondly, psychology/psychiatry often has approached issues of spirituality at a highly superficial level, treating spiritual development as something foreign to the development of the individual personality. Third, issues regarding life’s meaning have often been delegated to the theological realm. Fourth, many of the biological causes of mental illness have been delegated to psychology and psychiatry. Finally, as mentioned before, much of traditional psychotherapy has been based on classical Greek rather than biblical foundation legends.

“For all these reasons, many potential patients eschew traditionally trained mental-health practitioners in search of spiritual salvation from a variety of new age practitioners. However, many of these practitioners actually espouse pagan forms of spirituality, quite antagonistic to biblical beliefs–for example, talking sticks, crystals, astrologists, taro card-readers, and even witches.

“Whatever the reason for this disconnect, individuals and families suffer more than necessary as a result. And we believe that religious leaders and the mental health profession also suffer from this gap. We will attempt to treat this lacuna in this column. We will compare biblical versus Greek stories of creation, individual development, couple relations, parent-child relations, as well as issues of self-esteem, obligations, decisions, commandments, anger various disorders, family problems, parental blessings , good and bad development, recovery from misfortune and disability, and suicide prevention.

“We intend this column to serve as a meeting ground between religion and mental health.

Kalman J. Kaplan, Ph.D., is professor of psychology, Wayne State University, and clinical professor, department of psychiatry, University of Illinois College of Medicine.

(HealthDay News) — Turns out men don’t have to be living on Mars and women on Venus for communication problems to muck up dealings between the sexes.

Even when they’re seated across a table from each other in a first-time, five-minute conversation, a man tends to sexualize a woman and incorrectly assume sexual interest on her part, new research finds.

“We initially got started on this research thinking if we could identify men who tended to over-sexualize women, we could then interview them [to learn why] and stop sexual harassment on the job and date rape,” said lead researcher Maurice J. Levesque, an associate professor of psychology at Elon University, in North Carolina.

“We wanted to see if basically the macho-type guy was the only one who did this,” said Levesque, adding the study showed that wasn’t the case. “That variable — the socialization to be ‘macho’ — doesn’t make a difference,” he said.

Reporting in the new issue of Psychology of Women Quarterly, the researchers said that when a man meets a woman for the first time and they converse briefly, he’s much likelier than she is to rate himself — and her — higher on sexual traits such as flirtatiousness. And he’s more likely to think she’s interested in him sexually, when she may not be.

Although this is nothing new, it’s good that it is being documented in “research” format. The bad part of it is they excluded putting homosexuals and bisexuals in the study. I know exactly what the result would be, they have a tendency to sexualize more too.

“In the study, 43 college men and 43 college women, ages 18 to 22, were paired with a member of the opposite sex they’d never met.”

Why the restriction to heterosexuals? Are they all heterosexuals? How does the researcher know if they are not bisexuals not admitting their bisexuality, as so many studies have confirmed is a frequent problem with bisexuals?

“Levesque doesn’t know why all the men in the study seemed to over-sexualize women, but he speculated that “it’s got to be something about socialization, that men are being taught in some way to view women as sexual objects.”

At least he’s not as stupid as the following quoted research-a-idiot:

“The study findings are no surprise to Charles Hill, a professor of psychology at Whittier College, in California. He said the two chemical routes to sexual arousal help explain the study findings.”

The majority of people today still hate to look at how dysfunctional modern culture is. Blame it in the genes always and get another wasteful research grant to do it on top of it – it is the complete cheapening of science…

This is really horrible:

Britain has recently made commercial burglary, as well as “arson through vandalism to sex with underage kids,” into non-arrestable offenses.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.

But then again, it’s the UK, and it’s ruled by liberals, those adorable people with no character and no respect for anyone, specially for real victims of violence.

The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases – even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes – comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a “two-strike” rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

That’s because liberals care so much about the children, it’s all for the children – as the UK pro-homo chimps who come comment on my blog often remind us, just how lofty their morals and values are ( “Um, I live in England and have for a couple of years now. There aren’t any gay people running around accosting the rest of us.”) And pretty soon this guy won’t be seeing any sex crimes whatsoever, because you know what? The criminals will be sent off with a little caution and none will be prosecuted. And he, like the people who are making these rules, can keep his little head in the sand because he’s not being targetted for any of this violence. Isn’t humanity wonderful?

Read the comments, so many are great and very meaningful – but if it’s too much, just read the last one.

Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the UK to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out.

– Sarah, France

This isn’t justice, this is a licence to do exactly what you like, when you like and all you get is a telling off. Mind you I don’t suppose it makes much difference since the police seem to have given up even trying to catch most offenders. Not really their fault, most of the money seems to be spent on a toothless special force, whilst real police officers are tied down with red tape.

– Norma Maxwell, Huddersfield

[yep, this are liberals at their “best.”]

And yet another reason why we moved to Spain.

– Julian Schofield, Loja, Spain

The resistance to prison building is now absurd. Invade fewer countries and use the money at home.

– Jack Gordon, Wembley, Middlesex

Unbelievable. Total failure by the police/government to do their jobs. We were burgled last year, it was very traumatic for my wife and family. IT is NOT a victimless crime. Many people afterwards do not feel safe in their own homes.

In less than 1-100 do the police have any idea who did it, let alone have a conviction, what chance has a caution of being a deterrent, compared to an occupational hazard, every hundred or so ‘jobs’.

– Barry Woods, Reading, Berkshire

I’m disappointed they are not giving them a safari holiday as well.

– Martyn James Fraser, Liverpool

Most people should be asking what is the point of the Police Force, (no, its a service now). Without the possibility of proper punishment, what incentive do criminals have to not re offend? This will lead to vigilantism or anarchy.

– Ryk, London

Ignoring grass roots crime and taking no action against it is a criminal mistake. Politicians and man management gurus changing the rules and moving the goal posts to meet targets have destroyed the moral of police officers who really care. Whenever there is a problem the change the way statistics are recorded to hide the problem. They even decide that what was a crime in the past is not a crime now. Breaking into a home is one of the worst casual crimes that professional criminal do. The occupants of the property never feel safe again.

– James Bruce, Lee on the Solent, Hants

I absolutely agree with this. Poor criminals have enough to worry about – the possibility of over crowed accommodation if they actually get sent to jail – why not let them off with a caution, so they just keep on re offending? Great idea. I think maybe to make it a little easier for them, we should leave our doors unlocked, windows open, valuables on show – oh, and pay more taxes, so that the police can let them off with a caution. Excellent.

– Becky, Tunbridge wells, UK

My house is my safe haven, a burglar is not just taking your hard earned belongings, they are taking your peace of mind. I will feel totally abandoned by law and order if a burglar has only a caution to fear, he doesn’t fear me that’s for sure! Our country is suffering with repeat offenders being allowed to walk our streets to harm us mentally or physically. Is there protection for the honest people of this world? Not from our laws if you keep making it easier for people who just don’t care. I would like a world safe for me, my daughters and my granddaughter.

– Shirley Jolly, Waddon, Surrey

Presumably the idiots who dreamed this one up have never been the victims of burglary!
I have been burgled and believe this is far from the answer… what lessons are we teaching the next generation – you will get punished for dropping litter, driving even a little bit too fast but STEAL – well that’s OK then!
What about the lessons learned in New York? ZERO tolerance is required NOW

– Jane, Nottingham

The problem with laws like these are that the people who make them are too remote. THEY are unlikely to be the victims of burglary due to superior alarms, and/or instant police response to an incident involving them. It is usually the ‘ordinary’ people who are the victims in these cases.

– David Riley, Worcester, Worcs

I think we need to address why people burgle in the first place. Zero tolerance doesn’t work, people still break the law. Maybe digging to the root of the problem would be more beneficial than building more prisons. In a lot of cases they burgle to raise money for drugs, we have a ridiculous policy on drugs and that’s down to the stupidity of zero tolerance towards heroin etc. The quicker we accept that our drug laws have to change the better.

– Paul Sheppard, Brighton

This seems just about right… after being the victim of 2 burglaries in 9 months a short while ago – following the 2nd I actually found a mobile phone that had been dropped on the floor in my bedroom by the scum that broke in – when I advised the attending police officer of this, I was mortified to find that his response was that they would not be able to do anything with it in an attempt to catch them, as it would “violate their human rights”! Never mind my human rights as the person whose home was ransacked… why not just leave all doors and windows unlocked and invite them in.

– Casey, South Wales

This is absolute madness and concrete proof that, yes – this country has finally lost the plot. [lost the plot!! too funny]

I suppose householders will be penalized next for failing to leave out sufficient refreshment for burglars, perhaps made to do community service for the offence caused.

Arsonists might win damages from householders who refuse to give counselling and are unsympathetic to the ‘real reasons’ why someone has set their house on fire.

Why not just go the whole hog, and give criminals a police number to call when and if they encounter uncooperative victims, so that just and correct retribution can be handed out to those selfish citizens who callously disregard a burglar’s needs and desires.

– Jon Noble, London, UK

On the other hand, on thing I found frightening about the comments… and I must preface this with a question – were they selected by the newspaper? I didn’t go back to try to found. But what I found frightening is that all (almost all?) the 101 comments refer to how horrible it is for burglars to get off with a caution. Yet the paper mentions sex with underage kids – like as in disguised sexual abuse, you know?

Apparently this didn’t bother people – or they are too unaware of that abuse can be disguised as consensual by psychological manipulation, exploitation, and other such maneuvers. One reason why so many victims don’t accuse, they are convinced of being guilty – instead of realizing how much they were exploited.

But then Europe is like the Stone Age regarding awareness about so many of the complications of sex harassment and violence problems, including other types of physical domestic/civic violence.

Then again it could be just another blatant sign of how selfish people are – their possessions are the most important thing in society.

Spoiler alert!!!

The acting is great, and that is rare for a movie where they try to pack so many stars all into different roles, it usually just becomes a big star circus, but here they were very well cast, and despite their star marketing magnetism as the real reason for being booked, they actually fit their roles.

The colorfulness of Lee’s NY people is the best part perhaps (“Besides, that’s not where the real action is anyway. It’s the stuff on the sidelines — the character interaction, the flavorful New York setting — that give “Inside Man” its true substance and subject matter.”). And the plot sucks and doesn’t at the same time.

First, as other reviewers noted, the following really ruins the movie:

That’s the danger of making a thriller that aspires to something more than mere thrills.


The whole plot smells fishy. It’s not that the movie is hiding something, but that when it’s revealed, it’s been left sitting too long at room temperature. “Inside Man” goes to much difficulty to arrive at too little.

I had this exact feeling, which was frustrating as hell. First because I hate to be suckered by movie previews. Secondly because I know most previews are designed to sucker you and so it is so unnerving when they actually do. But I saw the preview and I was curious. What could be inside the bank? Obviously several ideas immediately came to mind and one of the them was in the line of the real movie plot. It’s Hollywood and don’t they still love WWII? So something to do with something committed a long time ago, that had been kept a secret, or it’s something very valuable, or very related to BIG crimes -nuclear, bio, trafficking, good versus evil apocalyptic wars, and all that- could possibly fill the answer gap.

So, as I walked out the cinema and was putting an effort in soothing my frustration with the retardedness of the plot and all its completely implausible twists and turns, one question did come up: is it true? Certainly the Swiss banks robbed Jews tremendously in various ways, ways which are still being fought over in courts today. But it’s the Jewish question that intrigues. Knowing humanity as we all do, isn’t this movie exactly what a non-Jewish guy at the right place and the right time in WWII would easily do? Make a fortune off the mega-rich Jews being sent off to death, and then, this Monsieur could very easily skip to America post-war and voilà, Mr. Smooth Millionaire founds a bank that grows and grows until he becomes just another icon of the American dream. This is the dream where little people gape but don’t look into real dealings as long as the appearances are grand. And big players basically turn their eyes the other way so as not to upset the whole system. But a Jewish guy? It is much less likely. But still the question remains – is it true?

Aside from what we know of how Jewish communities are tight and stick together and are usually quite brandished from birth in that respect, it would have had to be an enormous exception. Of course the human race always has enormous exceptions, but exactly because they are so implausible they happen once in a very rare blue moon. And in toying with the possibility of this being true, could such a guy get away with it? I mean, it’s not like the Nazis killed every Jew and every other financial dealer in Europe that could know who had money before the war – and who hadn’t. Then again, if you are a financial whiz it probably is quite easy to hide enormous amounts of money and then launder it as you please. It’s not the regulations that would put up obstacles to anyone, I just keep thinking about the community controls, knowledge people have about each other, you know? Could a clever guy pull it off? Not sure. Then again that’s exactly the message in the film, the truth catches up to people. Actually the film is in lala-idealist-land saying the truth always catches up, yada yada. Most often it does not or we wouldn’t have the barbaric world we live in – but did it catch up to someone real in this case?

I had been hoping the movie and all the bank robbery tactics along with the counter tactics by police would have been elaborated with more of a reality base – that would have been really interesting. But “Inside Man” also failed in this respect. The movie is a bunch of feel good fluff, and not extremely caricaturized characters, but enough to make a false portrayal of real people. Most characters hang in-between a caricature and a real human being – in a very irritating place. Given who the director is, big-black-tough but perfectly good police character kicks all the bad guys’ behinds so easily and always with a snappy retort, always. Did I say always? Please… Owner/chairman of MEGA NY bank/financial empire just sits there whimpering and lets a poor, lacking in stature, two-bit black cop do as he pleases – when there was the heaviest-duty stuff at stake? In one word, NO. Not. Ever.

So that really ruins the movie. Then again it made me think of racism and culture and isn’t this movie an idealized fairy tale that can only take place when serious changes have taken place in society regarding race relations? I mean, do you remember the roles Sidney Poitier was playing in 1950? Interesting, isn’t it?

Movie critic Ebert wrote:

I once knew a man named Jean-Jacques de Mesterton, whose biography describes him as “a professional adventurer, political advisor, and international facilitator.” You can Google him. I asked him what, exactly, he did. “If you have a problem,” he said, “first, you call the police. Then you call the FBI. If you still have a problem, you call me.” I guess Madeline White is supposed to be the Jean-Jacques of New York, but although she purses her lips, frowns, and won’t take any nonsense, she’s basically a red herring.

I didn’t think so – I think she is exactly what Ebert described in the first place, a female Mesterton, and, yes those people exist, although, I would think most usually in the male form. I read some of the reviews of Mesterton’s book on Amazon, kept wondering if they are just another suckering preview job or if his book is worth reading… and giving that curiosity usually wins out… 🙂

Then the other irritating thing, that happens way too often in movies in general, is that the whole script is just a long list of snappy retorts from the “good guys” to the “bad guys,” who have never anything to retort back. Just as in real life… (eyes roll).

And then on the serious side, I don’t remember Denzel with such big teeth, did something happen there? What’s those buck teeth I kept seeing? Is that the Denzel that is supposed to be a black version of a hunk? Jodie Foster on the other hand is perhaps the actress I’ve seen recently that is aging the best. And aging like that is rare, even in Hollywood.

Sun, O sun, where are you?

to this! A very interesting observation by H. D. Miller at an Ace’s thread:

Whenever he’s gets in a bind it’s off to the Fortress of Solitude for some deep rumination, and communing with his ancestors. It’s like the Roman ancestor worship as filtered through the Stoic philosophy of Epitectus: the compulsion to do justice, the deep concern with ethical behavior, the toughness, the self-discipline.

But, unlike the Roman stoicism, this is tempered with great mercy and concern for the downtrodden, which is what he’s taken away from the Kent’s version of Christianity.

A great mix indeed! Only for the best of people, but for which we should strive for always.

From thread in the Volokh blog – which started out as a discussion on homo marriage and turned into another display to how criminal the minds of many pro-homos are:


I beginning to think we should just let the SSM people have exactly what they want. – gay marriage for all. In fact, we should implement the whole leftist agenda –

aggressive affirmative action
welfare for all
socialized health care
jobs for life
enless environmental regulation
endless consumer “protections”
high taxes
birth control for all
free love

Oh wait, all that has been implemented in Europe. Last time I checked Europe had double digit unemployment, race riots, unstable governments, higher incidents of STDs, huge national debts, and declining birth rates.


And don’t forget that the whole pro-homo shtick is flying in Europe too, so homos and bisexuals are now always making unwanted and unwelcome advances on heterosexuals, including in work and academic environments, just as bigoted or adulterous heterosexuals have always done, and the child sexual abuse scandals are increasing, thanks to how liberal societies are so non-violent. Pornography and prostitution are being normalized too. Such a dandy moment in history, so much sexual exploitation and denigration in so many ways, all in the name of freedom.

Oh, incidentally I’ve just described the problems in the US that pro-homos hate to admit to as well.



Wow, things must be bad for gays in Europe if they have to hit up heterosexual people.

You are really self-absorbed if you think you’re in danger of being felt up by a lesbian.

PeterH, you see the above? Actually this is much more the problem with homo marriage, it’s part of so much criminal irresponsibility and ignorance that comprises pro-homo activism.

I’m copying below my response to Elais, by far the cheapest, most vile commenter on this blog. I mean, just how repugnant can you get to make fun of the reality of sexual violence? Leave it to pro-homos, no doubt.

Elais wrote:

Could you point out how non-violent heterosexuals are? And keep in mind I just came off of reading a report how a young heterosexual man killed 7 members of a multi-generational family.

In my community, I would guess that 99.9% of the violent crimes are perpetuated by heterosexuals.

You don’t say! And let me guess what your last name is? God. Not even morons have the pretense that they have the telepathic x-ray ability to know precisely who commited what crime, but not you, Elais. You don’t let that enormous stupidity of yours get in the way, now do you? You chat with someone and if they are nice to you, you just know they have never committed a crime. Maybe we should just abolish the Justice system and replace it with a 5 minute chat with you. Why have research and investigations and proof and facts and testimonials when we can have a stupid nut-job like you deciding whose guilty or innocent?

Elais wrote:

Gays on straight violence, harassment, etc. is non-existent.

Elais, there is unquestionable proof that non-heterosexuals commit a ton of violence towards heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Harmful action is not restricted to, but includes: domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, prostitution, sexual denigration, sexual exploitation, and collusion and cover up of all these types of harmful actions. This proof is comprised of research, interviews, studies, testimonials, court records, and personal experiences you are too diseased to face.

Elais’ level of denial is equal to Holocaust deniers. There is no way she can stick her head further in the sand. A nice example of how pro-homos are so often extreme nut-jobs.

Elais wrote:

I have met many gays here and they are some of the nicest, most pleasant, most non-violent citizens my community has.

What planet are you from?

Pro-homosexuality people like Elais are dangerous to society because they practice their diseased level of denial not only in blogs, but very sadly in the real world. Should an adult or child suffer harassment, exploitation, or violence from a non-heterosexual and try to report the offense to people like Elais, her reaction will be to obsessively deny the crimes, collude with the perpetrators, obstruct justice, consequently perpetuate more crimes, all in the name of their lunatic “homosexuals don’t commit any type of violence in the world, ever” obsession. It is the exact carbon copy of the obsessive denials found in religious people regarding covering up clergy who perpetrate harm and crimes.

Another fine example that 99% of most people’s ideas about what constitutes reality in sexuality is nothing but a product of their fickle imagination, profound ignorance, and emotional (and very egotistical) push-buttons. All of this gets warped into certain kinds of master narratives containing extremely simplistic stereotypes substituting the veritable complexity of real people. It’s plain to see to just what extent Elais’ brain cannot deal with complexity, nor with reality.

Elais wrote:

I have met many gays here and they are some of the nicest, most pleasant, most non-violent citizens my community has.

You know what this reminded me of as well? So many child abusers were/are able to carry on the abuse of one or more children because exactly they were/are always so nice and friendly and seemingly trustworthy to the adults around them. Literally thousands of examples of this.

The same for batterers – before police ever got training on domestic violence, the first thing a batterer would do is bond with the police officer coming to see what the noise was about- and they, the batterers, were usually calm, friendly, and sometimes even charming. In fact, some of the most violent batterers are described by people who only see them in their professional environment as “the nicest guy around.”

Putrid pro-homos obviously, in their egotistical crappy mind, see only what they like to see, and can care less about the reality of violence in society when it applies to non-heterosexuals – as long as the 2 or 3 homos they know are nice to them.

It’s as cheap as you can get.

Every child, adolescent, and adult that will suffer some form of harm or violence from non-heterosexuals in the future has Elais to thank for it and for insuring their reality is denied, they can thank her for denying the destruction of their lives, the torture of their minds, the infliction of barbaric pain, for causing all kinds of trauma, for exploiting their vulnerability, for dragging their dignity in the dirt, for conducing them to suicide.

Go on Elais, continue showing how monstrous your mind is, make some more of your putrid jokes- why not about how all the kids sexually abused by Father Shanley were making it all up, self-absorbed brats, were they? and the prostituted homo adolescents – cheap liars with kooky homo fears, aren’t they? don’t forget the homosexual rape victims, another category of self-absorbed liars? and how much women harassed by lesbians /bisexuals are all loony – even after they lose their jobs, academic programs, and suffer great emotional violence in the process…

To deny the reality of violence can actually be a much more serious crime because of its consequences than the great majority of any of the forms of so-called “hate-speech.” Which is the reasoning behind the banning of “Holocaust denial” speech in Europe. How many centuries before we will have something similar applied to the denial of reality of sexual violence, whereby someone with Elais’ putrid mind would have to answer for her lies about reality and the harm she and others like her cause to real victims of sexual violence and exploitation?

I disagree. I would not consider “being a homosexual” a state of nature in the same respect that race is a state of nature. If you think they are, would you also agree that “being a pedophile” of “being a polygamist” are also states of nature in the same respect? If not, why not?

Freder Frederson wrote:
Well, that’s an easy one. Being a polygamist is a definite choice. I am not going to comment on what “causes” pedophilia because I am not psychologist or psychiatrist but I will comment why it would be perfectly acceptable to condemn pedophilia even if it was a “state of nature” while it is wrong to condemn homosexuality. Pedophilia harms innocent parties, children, homosexuality does not. That is the distinction, even if both are “states of nature”.

Being a polygamist or, more precisely in order to align the analogy, the desire itself to commit adultery or simultaneous promiscuity is not a choice, although sexuality is partly based on a variety of choices. But the definite and direct choice regards behavior. Similarly to homosexuality, a person who doesn’t do anything to change their mental/relationship problems that create the desire to be adulterous, or if they don’t do anything to understand their psychology enough to change it, they are behaving like most homos do today.

Regarding: “Pedophilia harms innocent parties, children, homosexuality does not”.

Simply to show that his reasoning is faulty regarding the comparison, to take exactly the APA’s last decree, a pedophile who has no contact with children does not harm children. To which we must add: he/she (the pedophile) only harms him/herself by having a diseased mind- something the American Psychological Association is too corrupt to ackowledge.

But a pedophile will obviously only harm children if they come in contact with them, and choose to do harm, which is often the case. Pedophiles harm children because they trample over the right of the child not to have any sexual interaction. But this is exactly the same for every non-heterosexual that commits any kind of harmful behavior in the sexual arena, which is the same for heterosexuals. Even though I am just pointing out the problems with his comparison, the issue is the APA is now as corrupt and sordid as the ACLU, so their issuing that pedophilia “in itself” is harmless is a horrible deed. It just serves to legitimize pedophilia and give it a nice non-threatening sugar coating, and make people more tolerant to pedophiles, and turn down people’s radar to potential crimes, etc etc. But these are pro-homosexuals we are talking about, so no surprise there.

The other problem with this comparison is that there are a lot of adults who abuse either children or adolescents who also have an adult sexuality. Even if we define homo,bi,hetero as exclusive adult categories (useless and confusing) for a good number of pedophiles and ephebophiles the two groups intersect (pedophilia with heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality). Strictly speaking there are no pedophiles who are outside the hetero, bi, or homo categories, so to speak of pedophiles as a separate category than homosexuals (or bi or hetero) is false. Pedophiles always have some kind of desire or interaction with at least one child, the same for ephebophiles, so they will always be homo, bi, or heterosexual – words that simply define which two sexes are a part of a desire or actual relation.

This need to construct these very neat and distinct categories that do not align themselves with the complexity of reality is exactly one of the problems with master narratives in modern sexuality (something Elais, a pro-homo nut-job in this same discussion gave another great example of).

So this is not the reason why homosexuality is dysfunctional and not a state of “nature” (meaning health and harmony). Homosexuality is dysfunctional because heterosexuality has a profound beauty of the male and female coming together, which is what our species is about. Heterosexuality is sacred.

Homosexuality is as ugly and dysfunctional as pedophilia. Homosexuals are people who simply cannot have a healthy heterosexual relationship, who cannot procreate without unnatural means, and they use unnatural procreation means to serve their dysfunctional relationships.

More importantly to note, my concern is with harm and violence. The subject I find that is the greatest taboo at the moment is how non-heterosexuals sexually harass adult heterosexuals. I think liberal society is in even more denial about this than about how much non-heterosexuals harass and abuse minors.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: