These days when people ask someone, "How was your vacation?" the common response is so often, "Too short."
Well, Parkie's been posting comments again after an absence that has indeed been WAY too short. Naturally, he's been posting the usual pathetic, pitiful and woefully non-clever comments so typical for him and why we must continue to keep him in our prayers, and naturally I've been deleting them. BUT!! THIS comment, posted at the thread below the last was just so incredibly perfect in illustrating how far gone he is that I reprint it here in it's entirety:
""we hate"
Most honest comment of the year from MA..."
Ed Schultz would be proud, nay, envious for just how out of context the quote was and how Parkie used it to imply something completely false, as in, he's a freaking liar.
Maybe he thinks he's being funny. That would be sad and another example of the pathetic, pitiful and non-clever nature of the poor boy (or girl, as the case may be).
In the future, should anyone have the unfortunate experience of actually reading his drivel before I've had a chance to delete it, my advice would be to cut and paste it into your comment and respond that way. I'm gonna continue deleting his worthless drool until he decides to put on his big-boy pants and actually risk by posting a comment of substance that attempts to put seriously his own thoughts (such as they may be) on whatever topic is being discussed. I don't expect he has it in him, so don't hold your breath. The poor little troll.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Agenda Lies 3: No Slippery Slopes
I really hadn't intended on doing only Agenda Lies posts, but this came up on a local radio show, and I couldn't let it go without comment.
Those who push the "agenda that doesn't exist" have long insisted that concerns about a slippery slope are an overblown concern without merit. Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all. "Complete hysterical nonsense!" they cried, implying that only disordered homophobia could cause anyone to suggest such a thing.
Yet, what Santorum and others like him have so easily seen is coming to pass. We already have witnessed the beginnings of the push to legitimize polygamous marriages. As predicted (as if a special supernatural gift of prophecy was required to do so), the exact same arguments are being used to make the case that loving, committed varying numbers of people should be allowed to have their unions recognized and sanctioned by the state. How dare anyone judge them wrongly? How dare anyone try to force their religion down their throats?
Yeah.
Right.
Now we have the above linked article describing something very familiar, but far more onerous than what has already come to pass. Just as we saw back in the early '70s, where pressure from homosexual activists led to removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders, we now have pressure from child molesters working to do the same for pedophilia. Can bestiality be far behind? It's becoming less and less unreasonable to suppose that it isn't.
You'll note in the linked article that it all sounds so very familiar. The story is true. Only the deviancy has been changed to protect the "rights" of a different set of perverts.
How did we come to this? It's not hard to understand. It's the result of a complete abdication of resolve in upholding traditional standards of morality and virtue. It is not uncommon, even among conservatives, to hear that we need to set aside concern for social matters in our politics. Seems pretty damned clear that we've been doing exactly that for far too long. Did homosexuals cause this? No. Of course not. But the activists pushing the agenda that doesn't exist is a distinctly combustible log on the fire of moral decline in our nation, begun with the "free love" jokers of the 1960s and the Hugh Hefners that encouraged it. The door between a virtuous nation and a totally depraved one was never cast-iron. It was never more than a screen door with no lock. And those jokers and Hefners ripped it off its hinges and cast it aside in some self-gratifying but false notion of personal freedom.
And now children are at risk. Recently, two fellow bloggers spoke on the notion of "slippery slopes" and whether that term is accurate in how it is used. One suggested it is really a cliff off of which we have voluntarily jumped. Doesn't matter. The decline is speedy either way. And another Agenda Lie is exposed.
Those who push the "agenda that doesn't exist" have long insisted that concerns about a slippery slope are an overblown concern without merit. Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all. "Complete hysterical nonsense!" they cried, implying that only disordered homophobia could cause anyone to suggest such a thing.
Yet, what Santorum and others like him have so easily seen is coming to pass. We already have witnessed the beginnings of the push to legitimize polygamous marriages. As predicted (as if a special supernatural gift of prophecy was required to do so), the exact same arguments are being used to make the case that loving, committed varying numbers of people should be allowed to have their unions recognized and sanctioned by the state. How dare anyone judge them wrongly? How dare anyone try to force their religion down their throats?
Yeah.
Right.
Now we have the above linked article describing something very familiar, but far more onerous than what has already come to pass. Just as we saw back in the early '70s, where pressure from homosexual activists led to removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders, we now have pressure from child molesters working to do the same for pedophilia. Can bestiality be far behind? It's becoming less and less unreasonable to suppose that it isn't.
You'll note in the linked article that it all sounds so very familiar. The story is true. Only the deviancy has been changed to protect the "rights" of a different set of perverts.
How did we come to this? It's not hard to understand. It's the result of a complete abdication of resolve in upholding traditional standards of morality and virtue. It is not uncommon, even among conservatives, to hear that we need to set aside concern for social matters in our politics. Seems pretty damned clear that we've been doing exactly that for far too long. Did homosexuals cause this? No. Of course not. But the activists pushing the agenda that doesn't exist is a distinctly combustible log on the fire of moral decline in our nation, begun with the "free love" jokers of the 1960s and the Hugh Hefners that encouraged it. The door between a virtuous nation and a totally depraved one was never cast-iron. It was never more than a screen door with no lock. And those jokers and Hefners ripped it off its hinges and cast it aside in some self-gratifying but false notion of personal freedom.
And now children are at risk. Recently, two fellow bloggers spoke on the notion of "slippery slopes" and whether that term is accurate in how it is used. One suggested it is really a cliff off of which we have voluntarily jumped. Doesn't matter. The decline is speedy either way. And another Agenda Lie is exposed.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Agenda Lies 2: Hatred and Bigotry
As I tried to put across in the inaugural post on the lies of the agenda that doesn't exist, there are many levels of lies and dishonesty that are utilized by proponents of the agenda. Some are blatant and others are not so much. Today's lie is supported by pointing to fringe groups such as the Fred Phelps crowd, who incorrectly insist that "God hates fags". Of course, this is as untrue and as much of a distortion of Biblical teaching as anything the activists and their enablers say to promote their sinful cause. God loves us all and desires that none of us should perish. Unfortunately, many of us will.
But the activists use "hate" and "bigotry" to demonize those of us who stand firmly with the truth of the Bible and God's intention for human sexuality and do not mitigate the sinfulness of behaviors He prohibits, even when we ourselves succumb to temptations. We understand that there is absolutely no support for the ridiculous and laughable contention that Scripture only prohibits "some forms" of homosexuality and shake our heads at the completely transparent childishness of the notion.
To the activists, being unwilling to tolerate lame arguments regarding the "normalcy" and/or the moral quality of the behavior is rank bigotry, as if acknowledging reality is itself sinful. I mean, imagine being called a bigot because you acknowledge that someone who feels compelled to eat mud is abnormal. Imagine being called a hater because you acknowledge someone who stole your car has committed a sin.
But this is the level of dishonesty they must employ to gain the victimhood status on which they rely to muster sympathy for their cause. Rather than rely on facts that support their contention that their behavior is as normal as heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other) and as morally equal to heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other), because they can't, they take the deceitful road of demonizing the righteous side of the debate as haters and bigots out to get them.
The fact of the matter is this: intolerance of bad behavior is a virtue, not a sin. To deny the immorality of behavior that God prohibits is not really a choice faith allows. But it isn't anywhere near the same as how one feels about the person who engages in the prohibited behavior. Should we hate a liar? No. But we can hate that he lies. Should we hate the thief? No. But we can hate that he steals. Do we hate the homosexual? Not at all. But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them.
But the activists use "hate" and "bigotry" to demonize those of us who stand firmly with the truth of the Bible and God's intention for human sexuality and do not mitigate the sinfulness of behaviors He prohibits, even when we ourselves succumb to temptations. We understand that there is absolutely no support for the ridiculous and laughable contention that Scripture only prohibits "some forms" of homosexuality and shake our heads at the completely transparent childishness of the notion.
To the activists, being unwilling to tolerate lame arguments regarding the "normalcy" and/or the moral quality of the behavior is rank bigotry, as if acknowledging reality is itself sinful. I mean, imagine being called a bigot because you acknowledge that someone who feels compelled to eat mud is abnormal. Imagine being called a hater because you acknowledge someone who stole your car has committed a sin.
But this is the level of dishonesty they must employ to gain the victimhood status on which they rely to muster sympathy for their cause. Rather than rely on facts that support their contention that their behavior is as normal as heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other) and as morally equal to heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other), because they can't, they take the deceitful road of demonizing the righteous side of the debate as haters and bigots out to get them.
The fact of the matter is this: intolerance of bad behavior is a virtue, not a sin. To deny the immorality of behavior that God prohibits is not really a choice faith allows. But it isn't anywhere near the same as how one feels about the person who engages in the prohibited behavior. Should we hate a liar? No. But we can hate that he lies. Should we hate the thief? No. But we can hate that he steals. Do we hate the homosexual? Not at all. But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other).
What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Debt Ceiling Victory?
There have been all kinds of reports and analyses regarding this debt ceiling deal. The right-wing is divided over this agreement. Hard core conservatives are saying nothing was done and others on the right claim victory.
I can see both sides. If we consider the message of the last mid-term elections, this deal was a total failure. Runaway spending and liberal fiscal policy (if you can call it a policy) was the major reason so many Tea Party candidates did so well and the shift in the House to a Republican majority took place. This deal does very little (if anything) that should sit well with supporters of those candidates. And when you put that together with the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co., so that they could institute even more burdensome and economically destructive policies upon this country, it's hard not to agree with the elements of the hard-core conservatives. Especially since I count myself among them.
But the other side of the right-wing does have a point that must be accepted as true. The deal, and the debate that led to it, has indeed shifted the overall discussion in Washington from how and where to raise taxes (the left now calls it "raising revenues" so as to deceive---typical) to a focus on spending cuts, where it should have been for a long, long time. This is a good thing and a small but significant first step toward fiscal sanity and the important work of fixing our debt situation.
But it is ONLY a small step and alone accomplishes nothing whatsoever. From this point, the efforts must be doubled to get busy eliminating all that is completely unnecessary in terms of federal responsibility, which of course would include this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare".
As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues, except as they have been obstructed by Obama's lame moves. The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues and are more stimulating to the economy than anything the left has offered, or have the brains to imagine. As Marco Rubio has stated so well, our problem isn't taxes, but tax payers. We need more of them and too many people are still out of work, or working for far less than they used to, and it is from people working where revenues come.
Put that together with sensible spending cuts and the result is prosperity once again. It might involve some pain, but we're in pain now as it is. An increase in pain in order to soon be pain-free is a worthy endeavor.
I can see both sides. If we consider the message of the last mid-term elections, this deal was a total failure. Runaway spending and liberal fiscal policy (if you can call it a policy) was the major reason so many Tea Party candidates did so well and the shift in the House to a Republican majority took place. This deal does very little (if anything) that should sit well with supporters of those candidates. And when you put that together with the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co., so that they could institute even more burdensome and economically destructive policies upon this country, it's hard not to agree with the elements of the hard-core conservatives. Especially since I count myself among them.
But the other side of the right-wing does have a point that must be accepted as true. The deal, and the debate that led to it, has indeed shifted the overall discussion in Washington from how and where to raise taxes (the left now calls it "raising revenues" so as to deceive---typical) to a focus on spending cuts, where it should have been for a long, long time. This is a good thing and a small but significant first step toward fiscal sanity and the important work of fixing our debt situation.
But it is ONLY a small step and alone accomplishes nothing whatsoever. From this point, the efforts must be doubled to get busy eliminating all that is completely unnecessary in terms of federal responsibility, which of course would include this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare".
As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues, except as they have been obstructed by Obama's lame moves. The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues and are more stimulating to the economy than anything the left has offered, or have the brains to imagine. As Marco Rubio has stated so well, our problem isn't taxes, but tax payers. We need more of them and too many people are still out of work, or working for far less than they used to, and it is from people working where revenues come.
Put that together with sensible spending cuts and the result is prosperity once again. It might involve some pain, but we're in pain now as it is. An increase in pain in order to soon be pain-free is a worthy endeavor.
Monday, July 18, 2011
More Than Words
Getting back to that Barry Rosner column, I could almost use it for the next Agenda Lies installment, due to the underlying falseness that forms its premise. That falseness can be found in his words here:
"But never, seemingly, is there an actual discussion about the words themselves and why they are hurtful.
The focus is always on the act, the criticism and the contrition."
That falseness is in believing the focus does NOT belong on the act, or that words used in that act are of any true significance. It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm. One gets the sense that had Ozzie Guillen called the writer a horse's ass, not only would there have been no story, but not one sports writer would opine on the distress experienced by horses everywhere.
No. Rozner's column is simply a not-so-veiled defense of deviant sexual behavior and the people who engage in it. He starts from the unsupportable position that states that homosexual behavior is morally benign or morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a man and a woman married to each other. To him, as to other self-deceived people, it is not wrong.
OK. Let's suppose for a moment that it is not wrong. If that's the case, then what's the problem? As I said in the previous post, if someone calls me a "polack", I can't and don't take offense because I don't find being Polish to be anything to regret in the least. If I'm called a "Jesus freak", the same applies.
AH! they will respond. But you haven't been subject to the same evil persecution as homosexuals have! Really? There was a time when polack jokes were all the rage. Along with it came the condescension that would follow being caught in the act of making the average human mistake. "What a polack!"
Not good enough? Doesn't compare to physical attacks suffered by some homosexuals? Perhaps not. But Christians in many parts of the Middle East are still attacked and killed because of their beliefs. I haven't been attacked physically, but I'm attacked often on this here blog for expressing traditional and orthodox (not what Alan, Dan, Geoffrey and Feodor regard as orthodox, but ACTUAL orthodoxy) opinions. That makes me a victim in the same way most homosexuals are victims these days. A victim of mere name calling. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost over such attacks. OK, I can tell you: none.
But that's all really besides the point. The point is that what Guillen has done is shown a great lack of self-control and poor judgement. And that would be poor judgement in publicly calling another person ANYTHING that isn't both a truthful description as well as pertinent to whatever discussion was ongoing at the time.
I don't think Guillen really had the writer's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a faggot. I don't think Kobe Bryant had the referee's orientation in mind when Kobe called him a fag. I don't think Joakim Noah had the fan's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a fag. I doubt any of these guys is even aware of the sexual orientation of any of their "victims".
Rozner sees these situations as opportunities lost for not using them to begin public edification on the horrors of using "anti-gay" slurs. But again, if the behavior is not wrong, then those engaging in it aren't wrong in their engagements, and using the term can't be offensive. Go ahead. Call me handsome in a manner meant to disparage me. See how offended I get. Call me a Jesus freak or a polack. I know the terms are meant to be negative and hurtful, but they aren't if I see nothing wrong with being handsome, Christian or Polish. What I do feel is confusion and a level of pity for the one calling me those names. It's like trying to kill me with a rub-down and a warm bath. It just won't hurt me. Nor can it.
What bothers those like Rozner is that people still understand that homosexual behavior is wrong and abnormal. They don't like people to believe that. And they want people to STOP believing that regardless of whether that belief is truthful or not.
This pants wetting over the use of homosexual related slurs is not much different than the manner in which bullying is being addressed these days. The attention is neither on the bullying or the name-calling, but rather who is being bullied and what slurs are being hurled about. Bullying and harrassments in schools have been going on since there have been schools, but the bullying of homosexual kids (or those believed to be homosexual, or kids who think they're homosexuals, or kids who are told by adults who should know better that it is OK to accept their homosexual urges as normal). Athletes and coaches have been yelling at refs, fans and sports writers since there have been sports, but somehow it's not that they lose their self-control that's the issue, but how their lack of self-control manifests itself.
Why is this? It's simple. Because those who are so corrupted as to believe that homosexual behavior is something worthy of defense are doing what they demand the rest of us never so much as dare think of doing. They are trying to force their morality down the throat of America.
I guess if Barry Rozner believes that homosexual behavior is worthy of defense, his column is one he had to write. But here's the real reason why one shouldn't hurl "anti-gay" slurs at people: if the person isn't a homosexual, you're making a horrible slanderous remark. It's like calling someone a thief if he's never stolen anything in his life. It's like calling an honest person a liar. It's like calling a hard working guy lazy. However, if you call a person a thief because he steals things, you're simply stating a fact, whether you use the actual word "thief" or any slang alternative. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.
"But never, seemingly, is there an actual discussion about the words themselves and why they are hurtful.
The focus is always on the act, the criticism and the contrition."
That falseness is in believing the focus does NOT belong on the act, or that words used in that act are of any true significance. It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm. One gets the sense that had Ozzie Guillen called the writer a horse's ass, not only would there have been no story, but not one sports writer would opine on the distress experienced by horses everywhere.
No. Rozner's column is simply a not-so-veiled defense of deviant sexual behavior and the people who engage in it. He starts from the unsupportable position that states that homosexual behavior is morally benign or morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a man and a woman married to each other. To him, as to other self-deceived people, it is not wrong.
OK. Let's suppose for a moment that it is not wrong. If that's the case, then what's the problem? As I said in the previous post, if someone calls me a "polack", I can't and don't take offense because I don't find being Polish to be anything to regret in the least. If I'm called a "Jesus freak", the same applies.
AH! they will respond. But you haven't been subject to the same evil persecution as homosexuals have! Really? There was a time when polack jokes were all the rage. Along with it came the condescension that would follow being caught in the act of making the average human mistake. "What a polack!"
Not good enough? Doesn't compare to physical attacks suffered by some homosexuals? Perhaps not. But Christians in many parts of the Middle East are still attacked and killed because of their beliefs. I haven't been attacked physically, but I'm attacked often on this here blog for expressing traditional and orthodox (not what Alan, Dan, Geoffrey and Feodor regard as orthodox, but ACTUAL orthodoxy) opinions. That makes me a victim in the same way most homosexuals are victims these days. A victim of mere name calling. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost over such attacks. OK, I can tell you: none.
But that's all really besides the point. The point is that what Guillen has done is shown a great lack of self-control and poor judgement. And that would be poor judgement in publicly calling another person ANYTHING that isn't both a truthful description as well as pertinent to whatever discussion was ongoing at the time.
I don't think Guillen really had the writer's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a faggot. I don't think Kobe Bryant had the referee's orientation in mind when Kobe called him a fag. I don't think Joakim Noah had the fan's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a fag. I doubt any of these guys is even aware of the sexual orientation of any of their "victims".
Rozner sees these situations as opportunities lost for not using them to begin public edification on the horrors of using "anti-gay" slurs. But again, if the behavior is not wrong, then those engaging in it aren't wrong in their engagements, and using the term can't be offensive. Go ahead. Call me handsome in a manner meant to disparage me. See how offended I get. Call me a Jesus freak or a polack. I know the terms are meant to be negative and hurtful, but they aren't if I see nothing wrong with being handsome, Christian or Polish. What I do feel is confusion and a level of pity for the one calling me those names. It's like trying to kill me with a rub-down and a warm bath. It just won't hurt me. Nor can it.
What bothers those like Rozner is that people still understand that homosexual behavior is wrong and abnormal. They don't like people to believe that. And they want people to STOP believing that regardless of whether that belief is truthful or not.
This pants wetting over the use of homosexual related slurs is not much different than the manner in which bullying is being addressed these days. The attention is neither on the bullying or the name-calling, but rather who is being bullied and what slurs are being hurled about. Bullying and harrassments in schools have been going on since there have been schools, but the bullying of homosexual kids (or those believed to be homosexual, or kids who think they're homosexuals, or kids who are told by adults who should know better that it is OK to accept their homosexual urges as normal). Athletes and coaches have been yelling at refs, fans and sports writers since there have been sports, but somehow it's not that they lose their self-control that's the issue, but how their lack of self-control manifests itself.
Why is this? It's simple. Because those who are so corrupted as to believe that homosexual behavior is something worthy of defense are doing what they demand the rest of us never so much as dare think of doing. They are trying to force their morality down the throat of America.
I guess if Barry Rozner believes that homosexual behavior is worthy of defense, his column is one he had to write. But here's the real reason why one shouldn't hurl "anti-gay" slurs at people: if the person isn't a homosexual, you're making a horrible slanderous remark. It's like calling someone a thief if he's never stolen anything in his life. It's like calling an honest person a liar. It's like calling a hard working guy lazy. However, if you call a person a thief because he steals things, you're simply stating a fact, whether you use the actual word "thief" or any slang alternative. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
It's Only Words, and Words Are All I Have...
This article can easily be used for another Agenda Lies post. Lies are at the heart of the position espoused by Barry Rozner. But instead I have a different point to make.
And I believe I've made it before in some past post. That would be the old "sticks and stones" issue. Why would anyone get so bent out of shape over being called things? The only rational reason revolves around the implications the epithet provokes.
Imagine if you are a thief. To be widely known as a thief would put a serious cramp in your business as to be known as a thief would make you an object of constant scrutiny as well as to be considered one that cannot be trusted. To be regarded as a thief unjustly, however, brings about the same conditions. No one wants to be regarded as a thief whether one is or isn't an actual thief. Why is that?
Because being a thief is a bad thing. If someone was to regard me as a thief, I would be hurt because the fact is that I am not. It would hurt in the sense that it was untrue and I would be suffering that scrutiny without legitimate cause.
There are other words that imply the same thing. "Robber", or "burglar" also mean that one so labeled helps himself to the possessions of others without consent of the owners. "Klepper" is another, although it is derived from the psychological condition of one who steals for no reason. I wonder if kleptomaniacs are offended to be called a klepper or if they hear someone using the term as an epithet toward another.
Part of the point I am trying to make has to do with the word being hurled my way and whether or not it is accurate of me in any way, and whether if it is accurate, if it is something of which I would be proud, or at least not something by which I could find offense.
If I am called a polack, I can't be offended because I am of Polish decent. Though the term is supposedly a slur, what it means is not a great deal different from merely calling me Polish. Neither do I find to be offensive because to be Polish is not something I can help, nor does it have anything to do with the quality of my character. (Of course, I am an American first and foremost as far as nationality goes--the origins of my ancestors is entirely irrelevant.)
Imagine if you were actually perfect. Would there be any alternative word for that which could be hurtful? Being perfect is, well, perfect and perfection is that unattainable something to which most people aspire as closely as humanly possible. What would being marginalized for being perfect mean? Would it be a slight against you, or would it mean an issue for those who shun you? Obviously, the latter. Those who shun you have the issue for not being able to bear the thought that you are automatically "better" in everything. Not "better" or more worthy as a person, but better in terms of ability.
So where's the problem with being called any slur? Is the slur just a slang term for an otherwise accurate label?
Some nitwits who visit here have chastised me as a homophobe for my use of the contraction "homo". Boo-hoo. I am neither irrationally afraid of either mankind in general or homosexuals, whichever the mean by the term. They will call me "bigot" for my use of the term. But obviously, I am no bigot simply for using a contraction.
But it is hurtful, they will say? Why would or should it be if there is nothing wrong with being a homo? What the hell is wrong with them for taking offense at being something they proclaim to be morally benign?
I can be referred to as a "Bible-thumper" or a "Jesus freak" or a "fundie" and be marginalized as a result. That's OK. There are plenty of like-minded people with whom I can associate, as well as more rational "non-religious" people who can deal with our differences. And politically, I've been called an "asshole Republican" and I merely consider the source.
Recently, there has been legislation proposed, and I think adopted, by some states and possibly on the federal level, that would alter legal documents and laws that use the term "mentally retarded" or any of its forms. I bring this up because it is also irrational to me. It used to be an acceptable term, but because it's been used as an epithet, it is no longer acceptable. What seems to be lost on those well intentioned supporters of such changes is that whatever term or word is used to replace that which has become an epithet, the replacement will be used in the exact same manner in due course. The term was meant to attack those who have shown a lack of intelligence by their actions or mistakes regardless of their true level of intelligence. For the mentally retarded, to called a retard is merely a statement of fact. Change it to "challenged" and what do you think will happen? Do something stupid and someone will eventually call you "mentally challenged".
The real issue here is two-fold.
1) For the pitcher, it doesn't matter what words one uses to attack another person. The issue is the attack itself. The attitude that one is trying to insult and hurt another is the sin, not the method or word used.
2) For the catcher, this also has two components of note.
a) If the label is accurate or not, why let it hurt? Why give it the power intended by the pitcher? Get a spine.
b) If the label is accurate or not, what difference if it is a slang term or not?
And I believe I've made it before in some past post. That would be the old "sticks and stones" issue. Why would anyone get so bent out of shape over being called things? The only rational reason revolves around the implications the epithet provokes.
Imagine if you are a thief. To be widely known as a thief would put a serious cramp in your business as to be known as a thief would make you an object of constant scrutiny as well as to be considered one that cannot be trusted. To be regarded as a thief unjustly, however, brings about the same conditions. No one wants to be regarded as a thief whether one is or isn't an actual thief. Why is that?
Because being a thief is a bad thing. If someone was to regard me as a thief, I would be hurt because the fact is that I am not. It would hurt in the sense that it was untrue and I would be suffering that scrutiny without legitimate cause.
There are other words that imply the same thing. "Robber", or "burglar" also mean that one so labeled helps himself to the possessions of others without consent of the owners. "Klepper" is another, although it is derived from the psychological condition of one who steals for no reason. I wonder if kleptomaniacs are offended to be called a klepper or if they hear someone using the term as an epithet toward another.
Part of the point I am trying to make has to do with the word being hurled my way and whether or not it is accurate of me in any way, and whether if it is accurate, if it is something of which I would be proud, or at least not something by which I could find offense.
If I am called a polack, I can't be offended because I am of Polish decent. Though the term is supposedly a slur, what it means is not a great deal different from merely calling me Polish. Neither do I find to be offensive because to be Polish is not something I can help, nor does it have anything to do with the quality of my character. (Of course, I am an American first and foremost as far as nationality goes--the origins of my ancestors is entirely irrelevant.)
Imagine if you were actually perfect. Would there be any alternative word for that which could be hurtful? Being perfect is, well, perfect and perfection is that unattainable something to which most people aspire as closely as humanly possible. What would being marginalized for being perfect mean? Would it be a slight against you, or would it mean an issue for those who shun you? Obviously, the latter. Those who shun you have the issue for not being able to bear the thought that you are automatically "better" in everything. Not "better" or more worthy as a person, but better in terms of ability.
So where's the problem with being called any slur? Is the slur just a slang term for an otherwise accurate label?
Some nitwits who visit here have chastised me as a homophobe for my use of the contraction "homo". Boo-hoo. I am neither irrationally afraid of either mankind in general or homosexuals, whichever the mean by the term. They will call me "bigot" for my use of the term. But obviously, I am no bigot simply for using a contraction.
But it is hurtful, they will say? Why would or should it be if there is nothing wrong with being a homo? What the hell is wrong with them for taking offense at being something they proclaim to be morally benign?
I can be referred to as a "Bible-thumper" or a "Jesus freak" or a "fundie" and be marginalized as a result. That's OK. There are plenty of like-minded people with whom I can associate, as well as more rational "non-religious" people who can deal with our differences. And politically, I've been called an "asshole Republican" and I merely consider the source.
Recently, there has been legislation proposed, and I think adopted, by some states and possibly on the federal level, that would alter legal documents and laws that use the term "mentally retarded" or any of its forms. I bring this up because it is also irrational to me. It used to be an acceptable term, but because it's been used as an epithet, it is no longer acceptable. What seems to be lost on those well intentioned supporters of such changes is that whatever term or word is used to replace that which has become an epithet, the replacement will be used in the exact same manner in due course. The term was meant to attack those who have shown a lack of intelligence by their actions or mistakes regardless of their true level of intelligence. For the mentally retarded, to called a retard is merely a statement of fact. Change it to "challenged" and what do you think will happen? Do something stupid and someone will eventually call you "mentally challenged".
The real issue here is two-fold.
1) For the pitcher, it doesn't matter what words one uses to attack another person. The issue is the attack itself. The attitude that one is trying to insult and hurt another is the sin, not the method or word used.
2) For the catcher, this also has two components of note.
a) If the label is accurate or not, why let it hurt? Why give it the power intended by the pitcher? Get a spine.
b) If the label is accurate or not, what difference if it is a slang term or not?
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Agenda Lies
Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall Art's. This is something I've been wanting to begin for some time, but just couldn't decide on the format. I vacillated between a variety of options. It was after I saw this video that I decided to just jump in and do it. As you can see by clicking the link, the video is entitled "Name the poison". Another way to say this is, "call evil by its name". It's what is so desperately needed in this country these days, lest we suffer the consequences that befall those where good men have done nothing. (The video itself does not relate to this new feature, but is worth a visit, as is the blog that posted it.)
So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There's no difference.
Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.
So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: "There is no agenda."
I could point to the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it's not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.
It's really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.
Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people "MEN", or "MATURE ADULTS".
But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn't matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn't exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn't exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.
So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There's no difference.
Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.
So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: "There is no agenda."
I could point to the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it's not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.
It's really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.
Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people "MEN", or "MATURE ADULTS".
But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn't matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn't exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn't exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)