The Sacred Hall of Douchebaggery, vol 1

The first trolls I have removed via BanHammer, from the article "Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen pushes the same old bigotry"

  • John Robertson
    Homosexuality threatens all mankind as it was a curse of the Romans and Hellenists .
    It is unnatural un productive and perverted .Having seen a person die slowly from A.I.D.S
    it seems a poor choice for any decent self respecting person .The very act is dealing faeces and self love with no respect .I am not Jewish but they ae right and we non Jews can learn from humble decent people who care for their fellow human beings with passion not perversion .
  • oldangryguy
     Dear tin foil hat wearer. Homosexuality does not threaten all mankind - period. It is not unnatural, unproductive is not even really a word you can apply to sexuality, and as Freud had it perversion is anything apart from procreative coitus in the missionary position. In that sense there's a broad remit of sexuality that would be considered perversion by dear old uncle Sigmund. I should also point out that he thought perversion to be a normal, indeed integral part of human sexuality.
    It is indeed tragic that you have witnessed someone die from HIV/AIDS. AIDS however is not a 'gay disease'. It is spreading faster and further among heterosexuals.
    Your attitudes are yours to hold. I cannot change your mind, nor would I especially wish to. I disagree with you completely however. There is no care in such verbal disparagement on homosexuals. It is not out of concern for people that they are attacked in such a way. Its roots are - as they have always been - fear, stupidity and loathing. Learn compassion and live with your fellow humans, or practice hate and end up locking yourself into a life of bitter isolation.
  • Butseriously
    Gay prohibition is more than an ethics/moral/judiciary/free choice factor. Its an existential law: if 20% of humanity goes gay, humanity will disappear after a few generations. Its in the maths. This makes the Hebrew laws correct - as always. However, this does not mean gays should not be respected. It is better for gays and hetros to respect both parties: gay rights is good based on numerous other laws, but 'equal' gay rights is v bad for both gays & hetros. Both sectors must make compromises here, both are equally tested, both become 100% wrong if they flaunt this test and ridicule the Hebrew laws: remember there is no way to prevent incest & bestiality if gay is accepted. A gay cannot cringe if his neighbor invites him to the birthday of a child born of the man's biological daughter - both are based on free will and equal rights. The same applies with a child born of a woman and a beast. The Hebrew triumphs.
  • oldangryguy
    In my time arguing politics, ethics and religion online, I have frequently encountered arguments so bereft of common sense and logic that, by now, I feel I should have some form of card or permit that prevents these arguments being made to me, if only as a respite from having suffered them so often. Your comment contains many such arguments.
    Your mathematics is intriguing, founded as it is on no more than a spurious paranoia that has no grounding in reality. IF 20% of humanity 'goes gay' we'd be wiped out in a few generations. Well, no, we'd still be producing more little humans, we'd just have a population that was top-heavy in ageing. This also assumes that such a radical percentage shift could just 'happen' - suddenly and with no warning. Which is ridiculous. Without an 'if' the proposition would be incredibly stupid, with an 'if' it makes as much sense as saying 'if 20% of humanity suddenly turned into magic horses, we'd die out in a few generations.'
    "This makes the Hebrew laws correct - as always". From one spurious and illogical proposition to a statement that seems almost randomly connected to the one that preceded it. Your spurious proposition does not make mosaic/noahide law immortally correct. In any event, such laws cannot be correct or incorrect, only aptly or improperly applied.
    It is also difficult to attain respect if one party starts from a position of assumed superiority. The gay community has suffered torture, beating, murder, social exile, disdain, scorn and all of the absolute worst traits of humanity heaped upon them. Heterosexuals have had to put up with some instances of mild annoyance. One cannot share rights that are unequal. Compromise involves both sides making concessions, not just one. You cannot claim respect and decency while also absolutely denying some form of parity.
    The test you refer to, I assume is some form of deific judgement? This is important if you share those beliefs, but utterly irrelevant if you do not. In any event, I cannot see any possible case being made to decide which religious law to hold up as 'the one' to follow. If we hold up the Noahide laws, will the Christians follow them? If we hold up the 10 commandments, will the Muslims follow them? If we hold up Sharia and the Pillars of Islam will non-Muslims follow them? There is no ultimate spiritual law that is binding on all humanity. Those who believe in an individual creed may believe their laws to be binding and universal, but they are not so to those outside that creed.
    The conflation of incest and bestiality with homosexuality is one of the most noxious and idiotic arguments bandied about. Indeed, one of Australia's Members of Parliament just resigned from the Opposition front bench recently for mouthing this exact same heinously ridiculous argument. Incest is most frequently practiced by heterosexuals anyway. Bestiality is a behavioural disorder where a human rapes an animal. There is nothing remotely comparable between it and homosexuality.
    What children born of man and beast you are talking about I cannot guess, as I live on planet Earth, not in the Clash of the Titans film, or some other whimsical fantasy.
    In the end, this article is about rejecting the notion that it is somehow 'okay' to bully young gay people into suicide. It is better, I think, to stand on the side of justice and compassion for all, than it is to stand on the side of hatred and delusion. Where any faith chooses to fall along that divide, I simply do not care. No faith can or should justify cruelty, and if it does it is clearly the work of man, not some benign deity.
  • Butseriously
    First, u ignored my point, gay rights is a good thing. You are responding to my premise of 'equal rights' not being a good thing, and actually bad for gays.
    Second, my maths is correct, al beit its based on the trend of making gay as equal with hetro continuing and prevailing. Here, you have to respond to 'what if the math is correct' - do you still uphold your premise for humanity? Who is the bigot here? I can assure you that hetros may not say so openly, but their rejection of gay is never based on bigotry - it is a genuine biological reflex, involuntary and 100% sincere. Hetroes also have rights.
    Third, the Hebrew laws are not noxious based on your preference - the world turns by it exclusively. There are no laws from the Gospel, Quran, Bagwatgita or any other source which the world's bona fide judiciary and other institutions accept - otherwise feel free to name a single law coming from those sources w/o using fancy words instead? The premise of stoning is not relevant today - in ancient times one got stoned for a parking ticket; of note Israel was the first nation to outlaw capital punishment, human sacrifice, making slaves as contracted workers with rights - as well as all animal and women's rights coming from here exclusively. Fact, not an opinion; hardly noxious.
    Yes, you cannot negate incest or beastiality if gay is sanctioned. What do you say to a father & daughter who argue, as do gays, they are not hurting anyone, are genuinely in love and its by mutual consent? What do you say to a woman in love with her pet?
    I don't accept bullying, vilification or hurting. I applaud gay rights; I don't see it as 'equal' to a man-woman relationship/marriage. An honest gay would agree its not equal. Its a hot potato item today, and it will never be resolved with your premises. Good wishes to you, nothing personal - but I stand by my views.
  • oldangryguy
    I didn't ignore your point. Your point merely has holes in it. Gay rights are equal rights, that's what it's about. It is disingenuous to say 'Hey I'm all cool with you guys in one breath' and then 'but you are the extinction of the human race' in the other.
    Not all heterosexuals claim to have an innate biological rejection of homosexuals as you do. Your maths is wrong. You seem to be conflating socio-legal equality with numerical parity. Equal rights for gay men and women does not lead to a sudden spike in hetero -> homosexual 'conversion'. You may think your maths correct, and perhaps given more fanciful, fictional parameters they may be, but they are based on an illogical premise.
    Modern law in western nations draws freely from the Abrahamic tradition, the Magna Carta, the Code of Hammurabi and centuries of evolved jurisprudence. No western government or court draws purely and explicitly from any one religious source. Israel is not the sole source of all humane law. Otherwise it would be a utopia today, and the whole world would envy it's record of human rights accomplishments - hardly the case.
    The incest/bestiality line IS complete and utter bullshit. They are not parts of a whole - one inter-connected abhorrence to be permitted or condemned together. I can think of one case in living memory where an incestuous relationship was permitted by the courts because both parties were over the age of consent and had full awareness of what they were doing. Such a case is an anomaly. Incest is usually prosecuted where it is an element of rape or pedophilia - both of which are crimes because they violate consent and cause harm. If someone claims to 'love their pet' as you say, then that is irrelevant. If that person engages in a sexual act with their pet, then they are committing a crime of animal rape. It is established fact that an animal cannot express intention nor give consent as a human does, ergo, it is an act of rape, not love. DO NOT compare these with the relationship of an adult couple over the age of consent. It is stupid and insulting. There is no comparison that can be readily made.
    Love between consenting adults is always equal. It is our laws that choose to make it not so. Sometimes these laws have just cause for their prohibition, and sometimes they do not. The fact remains that if you tell an adolescent who may be coming to terms with the fact he or she may be gay, that no love they ever have will be anything but inferior to a heterosexual one, that no relationship they ever have will be seen as valid, and that it is okay for them to be bullied into suicide on that basis - none of this is positive, none of this is decent or humane. You simply cannot claim to accept someone, and at the same time deny that anything they say or do is equal to anyone else.
    I'm well aware I'll never change your views, but I invite you for one day to imagine what it must feel like to be constantly hated and to live in fear and secrecy. To imagine people saying to you 'I accept you, but you are like someone who fucks a dog, and none of your relationships are equal to mine'. It's not about anything but compassion, and wanting to give people a fair go.
  • Butseriously
    You did ignore my point. The maths is irrefutable, un-answered, manipulated and deflected, and your charges against the Hebrew laws groundless - a host of Hebrew laws are directed on equality as no other writings possessed by humanity; the first women's rights come from here; the first laws against slavery & human sacrifices also come from here. All have equal rights under the law and subject to the law applying. There is no freedom without laws.
    You are also condoning incest, reducing it only to pedophilia, when in fact it is wrong even with consenting adults, on the same grounds which impact on gay. Love is not always equal - conditions apply; respect & truth transcend love & belief, to the extent it is not love w/o those factors.
    The trait for gay is a residue of man and woman coming from one singular entity before the separation of the first human - this is given in Genesis and there is no scientific alternative to it. The 'NAME' of that human is Adam, making the first speech endowed life form as being 5773 years today in the oldest active calendar, and you sir cannot produce an older recorded name than ADAM. The Hebrew bible is the world's most mysterious document - your variance of this truth is based on your own issues, not on any vindicated reality.
    You are certainly not assisting the cause of gays. A compromise must be achieved. Gay is not equal, a notorious claim; yet we are both equally tested how we proceed. We all inherit traits which we are tested by.
  • oldangryguyCollapse
    One of the things about owning a blog is the ability to shut out dissenting opinions. Different bloggers have different reactions to this fiat. I have always thought it best to converse where possible. This is why, thus far, I have not just deleted your comments out of hand.
    I have responded to your 'maths theory'. I pointed out legitimately that you are conflating growing social and legal tolerance with a miraculous attendant conversion from straight to gay. I found this farcical. Greater social acceptance may allow people who were gay to publicly admit it, and thus discard a disguise of heterosexuality, but it cannot change people's sexual identity. It just can't. If every prejudicial law against gays and lesbians were removed tomorrow, would everyone magically become gay? Of course not. The people who were always straight would stay so, and the people who weren't would remain so.
    Also, I did respond to your statements about Hebrew law. I did not call them noxious in my comments. All I did say in my comments about them was that they are not necessarily correct or incorrect, except in their application. Some choose to interpret them liberally, others in an ultra-orthodox fashion. If the laws were as great as you claim, then perhaps they would be enforced as such, but it is up to humans to enforce these laws, and they do so in an inconsistent way.
    I did not condone incest. I personally find it quite an uncomfortable and nasty topic. What I did say was that when it is enforced by law, it is often bound up with other factors, such as rape or pedophilia. I also dismissed that homosexuality has any similarity to incest, a point you seem keen on pushing for no reason that has been adequately explained thus far.
    If you choose to argue that a same-sex couple's love for each other is inferior to the the love of a heterosexual couple, simply because they are a same-sex couple, then I question your claim of standing for gay rights. 
    Maybe you haven't been keeping up with science in the last couple of centuries. Embryos start out as indistinct gender-wise in the womb. Genitalia does not develop until relatively late in the game. We, all of us, were at one stage neither male nor female. Maybe you should also check out the Sumerians, their civilisation predates 6,000 years. I understand you place stock in, and truth in the Genesis story, but science has accounted for the evolution and development of man, and our reproductive cycle. I understand you would not wish to accept scientific knowledge, based on its conflicts with Genesis, but I can't help you with that. I know the human race is older than 6,000 years. I know that we were were not magically split in two, and conned by a talking snake. I respect your right to your beliefs, but I cannot and will not share them in this regard. Oh, and if by vindicated reality, you mean physical evidence, then yeah, my opinions do have some physical evidence behind them.
    Gay and straight are just orientations. They're about as relevant as shoe size or hair colour when it comes to morality. And the funny thing is that by starting from a point of condemnation, you think you are being more compassionate. So, I'll tell you what. Try a social experiment, go up to a gay man and say that he's little better, if not morally on par with someone who fucks dogs, and see if he thinks you're the compassionate one.
    I have actively disliked this conversation, yet out of some morbid fascination have continued feeding the flames. I haven't been on my blog for a very long time, and was actually thinking of giving it up. You have done me one immense favour however. Your illogical arguments and blind zealotry have spurred me on.
    And also given me time to consider and implement a blocking/banning policy. So thanks.

    1 comment:

    1. AnonymousMay 2, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      Man, you are so persistent to have answered all those twisted arguments! Congratulations!

      ReplyDelete

    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)