I just saw that "Chaz" Bono was voted off of Dancing With The Stars. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if she was any good. The few times curiosity has compelled me to check out YouTube clips of performances, I have been struck by how "un-natural" the celebrities seem regardless of the steps and moves they've mastered. (By comparison, I offer Steve Martin in "Pennies From Heaven". He made himself a dancer.) At the same time, I'm impressed that they've done as well as they have.
But this isn't really about the show. It's about "Chaz". She stated, after being bounced, that she was glad she had the opportunity to show the world a different kind of man. Like that's what the world needs. There's only one Man we need to emulate and one needn't be a man to do so.
Unfortunately, she isn't a man. She's a woman who went through incredible effort to appear to be a man, so that she can pretend to be a man, because she has the emotional/psychological dysfunction of thinking she is a man. She's not. She never was and never will be. It's a most elaborate disguise and nothing more.
Her mother, the idiotic Cher, of course supports her 100%. But not really. Is it really support for a parent to sit back while the child does something so goofy? Wouldn't it be a better sign of support if she urged and provided counseling to deal with the dysfunction? Libs today wouldn't agree, but that's why we are suffering from the moral decline now ongoing.
People like Chastity Bono need our prayers. They need so much more, but that's the best WE can do.
51 comments:
I absolutely agree! She was born female. God created her a female. No amount of surgery, Hormone injections, Liberal indoctrination, or wishful thinking can change that fact.
I lost a couple of Facebook friends because I pointed out the fact that Chastity Bono is a female regardless of what she wants others to think.
I stand by my conviction.
Two points.
I was forced to watch the show twice by my wife and saw Bono's performances. They really were mediocre at best. That really isn't a bias. Bono is pretty big and as such doesn't move very gracefully, neither do I for that matter. I suspect Bono's duration was due to whoever is in charge of voting people off the show -- either the viewers or the panel -- did not want to vote her off too soon so they wouldn't appear to be voting her off because of her transgenderism. But the charade couldn't last forever. it was just time.
Second, as it pertains to Bono herself; people like her need a psychiatrist, not a surgeon. If the only way to feel normal is to mutilate your body, there is something wrong with your mind, not your body. I have never understood why, in a situation like Bono's, that people are willing to assume that the mind is correct and the body is incorrect. Why do we make the body conform to the mind rather than the mind conform to the body?
Shameless self-promotion: I wrote about this subject in Out of Sight, Out of Your Mind.
If for example, my mind told me I ought to have only one arm rather than two, I imagine a good many people would insist I am wrong. If I insisted on cutting one off, how would we look upon a parent who encouraged me to be me and help me find a surgeon to amputate a properly functioning arm? Would not a loving parent suggest therapy?
I know nothing about arc-welding, so I tend not to write about it. Ditto carpentry, or plumbing, or running electrical wiring.
I also really don't know all that much about a whole host of topics - the history of Peru, say, or the foreign policy of Bangladesh. So, you won't see any posts about it.
I think a good rule is, if you don't know anything about a particular topic, silence is the best way of not betraying your ignorance.
Well said, Geoffrey!
Is it really support for a parent to sit back while the child does something so goofy?
Actually Cher was mad at Chaz at first. But since she loves her child, she supports him.
God created her a female.
And how do you know God didn't make his mind determine that he was actually a male?
Geoffrey,
"I think a good rule is, if you don't know anything about a particular topic, silence is the best way of not betraying your ignorance."
Yet here you are.
Jim is impressed with your comments, but that's not surprising. Let's review just what is wrong with them:
The first, and most obvious problem, is that one must be expert in any field or area on which one wishes to opine. This definitely disqualifies probably 95% of most bloggers' posts, including, most definitely including, yours.
I don't know that you've ever claimed to be a professional musician, for example, or any kind of professional within the music industry, but you post regularly on music ("Music Monday", I believe?).
Even that which you've studied extensively, Christianity, you do not grasp nearly as well as you like to put on that you do, as evidenced by your disregard for Biblical teachings on sexuality, even once suggesting that God doesn't care about such things. Yet, you're not above a post now and then on Christianity in some manner.
Blogging is often an outlet for people to express their opinions on any number of subjects that are of interest to the blogger. Expert status is not required for this, as few are expert enough even in their chosen fields of interest to justify so arrogantly posturing themselves as you have here.
What is truly at work is, like Vinny has been doing in the previous thread, condescending toward one who differs on the topic at hand. You don't like the position I take, so you like to assume I know nothing of the subject.
Which leads to another reason your comments are for shit. I do indeed know what I'm talking about. I don't need a peer-reviewed study to know what Biology 101 taught regarding what constitutes male or female. The presence or absence of the Y chromosome is the indicator of gender. She may have surgically added a package, but if she still lacks a Y chromosome, and I'm betting she does, she's still a female. No amount of camouflage can change that.
John's analogy is a good one. The emotional/psychological dysfunction is plain to see. Here's another:
What if Chastity decided she was really a dog? "I really feel the need to have my belly rubbed, to eat out of a bowl and to crap in the yard. I wanna change my name to 'Puddles'." Clearly she isn't a dog, but should she be "supported" in her decision or committed? For those of us who "know nothing" about the subject, the answer seems quite clear. For Geoffrey and Jim, they'd have her playing "Fetch" in no time.
Jim said,
"Actually Cher was mad at Chaz at first. But since she loves her child, she supports him."
Two things wrong here...
Cher isn't being supportive. She's enabling. Not a good thing.
"Chaz" is not a "him" and no one is obliged to pretend that she is. This is important unless you wish to enable her as well. Of course that's silly to say because of course you do, as evidenced by your referring to her as "him".
I strongly suspect that not one sex change patient ever truly forgets what they truly are. That is, their true gender. As I reminded in the previous comment, one is what the presence or absence of the Y chromosome says one is. Even more so, I more strongly suspect that no one, like Jim and Geoffrey, ever forgets that they are dealing with a person who changed their gender. No one who knows Chastity will ever convince themselves she is truly Chaz because that can't be forgotten once known.
Mark,
Those "friends" were already lost.
I didn't use the word "expert", Art, for the marvelous reason that I detest it. Most "experts" use it as a cover for their own arrogance and narrowness.
Let's set it out here: Things in this blog post of which you are ignorant (unless you can fill me in otherwise) include - the life of Chaz Bono; the life of Cher; the parenting skill-set, style, and competence of Cher. That right there are three big ones. You presume to pass judgment upon the lives of two people of whom you know absolutely nothing, beyond snippets in entertainment "news" reports.
With me so far? As to the psychological, medical, and interpersonal dynamics involved in gender reassignment, I would venture that you are pretty much . . . running on empty. I am not critical of your views regarding the wisdom of such action. On the contrary, I am sympathetic, to a certain extent, to the view that gender reassignment through counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery is the equivalent of swatting a fly with field artillery.
All the same, it is a reality. It is done with care, takes years of work including several psych evaluations, each stage has to be thoroughly assessed by a medical team including a psychiatrist before moving on to the next stage (some transgendered folk don't go whole-hog with surgery, which begs a whole lot of questions for me, but I'll set that to one side).
I respect the process, and would never be presumptuous enough to publicly chastise any individual whom I did not know that he or she was wrong to choose this path for his or her life. For this simple reason - it isn't my life.
It is a sad story. As you noted, she is a she and always will be, no matter how much she mutilates herself and no matter how many people affirm her in her rebellion. I hope God makes her spiritually alive so she can be reconciled to him.
Cher is a sad story as well. No matter how many decades she spent mocking God and supporting all manner of rebellion against him, when her daughter wanted to mutilate herself she knew deep down that it was wrong. She has rationalized away those feelings -- or at least tried -- as so many people do.
It reminds me of my liberal in-laws who must now choke down their real feelings and pretend that it is no big deal that their daughter "came out" as a lesbian (she's been rebelling her whole life and I think she has just chosen this as a faddish, politically correct way to shake her fist at God a la Romans 1). I guarantee that her parents and liberal relatives are disappointed but they don't dare admit it. After all, they've been patting themselves on the back for being so open and accepting and they won't want to admit they were wrong. I feel sorry for the whole lost lot.
BTW, the materialists are wildly inconsistent here, supporting people's thoughts over the physical facts of their gender. But consistency never was their strong suit. The only thing that they and the theological liberals are consistent at is mocking God 24x7.
Marshall, good post and good hypothetical about someone claiming they were "really" another species.
Geoffrey:
"I am sympathetic, to a certain extent, to the view that gender reassignment through counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery is the equivalent of swatting a fly with field artillery."
Hogwash.
Here's the facts:
Chastity (The most oxymoronic name I've ever heard) Bono is, was, always has been, and always will be a female. Nothing can change that fact. Not even the opinions of so-called experts like you. As Art said, it's in her genes.
Do you suppose the doctors were also successful at changing her genes? If not, she's still a female.
Mark, as you quoted in full, I am wary of the whole process, so your comment - "Hogwash" - is nonsense. My refusal to comment upon the personal lives and choices of other people is a sign of adulthood, not a sign that I am either lying or being evasive about the matter at hand.
It is none of my business. I do not know anything at all about the people involved. Ergo, I think it best to remain silent.
I'm not sure about the reference to genes. There are people born with all sorts of physical and genetic quirks that leave them, in a sense, hermaphroditic. There are people who, because of abuse or other trauma, find association with their genetically predisposed gender identification problematic. There are people who just feel, well, like they are an (a) trapped inside the body of a (b). I do not know much about the psychology involved, so I'm just not qualified to make the leap from my own disquiet over the whole thing to the categorical declaration that it is, and the people who choose this path for their lives are, in some sense doing something wrong.
That is also the sign of being an adult, Mark. I don't confuse my own opinion with The Way The World Should Be. I don't like applesauce, but I don't seek to ban it from store shelves.
Hey, if you buy the Darwinian sound bite about humans being 98.5% similar to chimps* then Chastity was about as close to being a female chimp as she is to being a human male.
The hypothetical seems silly, but it simply takes the premise of the "you are what you think you are" logic to its natural conclusions.
If you think it is ignorant, then maybe your "Chaz" logic is just as ignorant.
* That is highly misleading, as our DNA is something like 40% similar to bananas and such, and the alleged 1.5% gap would still mean many millions of differences, and it completely ignores the vast differences in what was formerly and erroneously called "junk DNA" by Darwinists (as Intelligent Design would predict, it wasn't junk at all).
Good post. She's still a she, no matter what mutilation was done to her body.
As for the need of a psychiatrist - that would be the last thing needed; more psychobabble to reinforce here bizarre ideas.
It doesn't take an expert to know that mutilating one's body does not change who the person was born as.
More information as to the actual DNA similarity to chimps, which only demonstrates a common designer:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n1/dna
I happen to work with a transgender person. She is one of the sweetest, smartest, hard-working, charitable, funniest, all-round good, persons I have ever known.
And I don't care about what choice she made or what possessed her to do it. She is who she wants to be and I wouldn't ever presume to tell her she is wrong.
It's none of my business. Why do you care about Chaz Bono's choice?
I goofed! I didn't realize my wife had used the computer and I made that last post on HER account. (The Piper's Wife). So don't blame her :oD
Geoffrey,
"I didn't use the word "expert", Art, for the marvelous reason that I detest it. Most "experts" use it as a cover for their own arrogance and narrowness."
Yeah. Right. Like you don't posture yourself as more knowledgeable on any variety of subjects. For you to "detest" the word "expert" is as arrogant as any who would claim to be an expert, though few who aren't would BE so arrogant as to use it. They'd only eschew the use of the word. How freakin' pretentious!
The word is a legitimate one used to describe those of great knowledge and experience in a particular area. Most who describe themselves as such usually say so humbly as in "I'm somewhat of an expert..." This has been my experience when hearing anyone so describe themselves.
But enough of that. Let's look and see that you claim more knowledge as to what constitutes being an adult. Yet no one here is butting into anyone's personal business, looking to force Bono to do anything, or even, in the case of my post, speaking in terms of morality. MY point was simply that she is NOT a man and never will be.
At the same time, I can most definitely proclaim my opinion on the morality of ANY behavior as that is how any culture comes to hold to ANY level of standards: by the expression of the opinions of its people. Far easier and less awkward to speak on some far off celebrity as an example of the bad behavior.
More over, no one has even attempted to speak on the private aspects of the Bono family decisions. But what we can observe is easy to assess and it is only that on which we comment. From that we can assume their thought processes are as askew as the results for the results tell the tale.
And we can also easily see that someone is emotionally/psychologically troubled and confused by those how that confusion has ultimately manifested.
Your pompousness in decrying our commentary is not a sign of adulthood, but of abdication and another sign that you, too, are confused as regards the area of sexual immorality to suggest that no one can comment on someone who so publicly proclaims their confusion.
Art, I have never, ever, claimed to be an expert at anything.
I find it astounding that you would simply insist, as Mark did, that I am lying. Be my guest. I have said many times I do not like claims of "expertise". I do tend to listen to people who are knowledgeable about stuff in which I am interested but have only cursory understanding, like economics, anthropology, physics, biology. That is not the same as expertise. So, I shall repeat myself. I have never claimed expertise in anything. I do not like claims of expertise, because they are usually self-serving. Finally, to say one is ignorant of a topic, an issue, or anything else, is not a value judgment, nor is it to insist that one should only speak or write on topics for which one holds "expert" knowledge. That would be silly of me.
Rather, my claim is what it is - you obviously know nothing about who Chaz Bono is, what his life has been like, what his childhood was like, what his relationship with his mother is. You do not know Cher, you do not know what kind of mother she was, what kind of person she is. That alone should disqualify you from making judgments upon their lives.
I have to wonder - why did I come back here? I ask this question quite seriously. In all honesty, I can state categorically that I find the company detestable. I find the presumption amusing, in a creepy way. I find the level of discussion to be a bad parody of internet discourse. Three individuals in particular who have already commented are, without a doubt, folks I would cross the city to avoid if I knew they were in the same town I was in, because meeting them would force me to wash with steel wool.
So, I shall depart wishing I had known better than to chime in here. Feel morally superior to the Chaz Bonos and Chers of this world to your hearts' content.
Marshall, I hope you feel appropriately chastised by Geoffrey for judging. Because you should be like him and never judge. Because judging is bad.
As is hypocrisy.
comment on someone who so publicly proclaims their confusion.
Who's confusion? Yours or Chaz's? I don't think Chaz is confused at all.
confused as regards the area of sexual immorality
What if Chaz is celibate? Is he still sexually immoral?
Geoffrey,
"Art, I have never, ever, claimed to be an expert at anything."
Glad to hear it. Don't think I said you did. But that wasn't my point anyway (what a surprise). My point was that you do condescend, making negative remarks about the level of knowledge of those with opposing views, like your original comment does so superbly. It was that you assume the posture of one of superior expertise on whatever topic we find ourselves engaged, citing peer reviews and such in order to prove how much more you know. This notion that you "detest" the word "expert" is pretentious crap of the same bent. If you indeed are no expert on anything, I don't see how you can go on to pretend to determine the level of expertise of anyone else.
Further, I don't believe ANYONE claimed to be an expert, but only that I stated that one needn't be and expert in order to post opinions of any kind on any subject or issue. YOUR original comment suggests that one cannot do so without knowing anything about the subject. But I plainly DO know what determines gender, so I know enough to comment on someone pretending to be of the opposite gender, which Bono and other like her are. THAT was the point of my post in the first place, but points for you are so incredibly elusive.
"I do not like claims of expertise, because they are usually self-serving."
How judgmental. Some such claims are entirely legitimate and one needn't be shy about stating the truth about one's self in every circumstance. At the same time, I find it very self-serving to make such a statement, as it serves you to be seen as above such "self-serving" self-aggrandizement. Who do you think you're kidding?
"Rather, my claim is what it is - you obviously know nothing about who Chaz Bono is..."
A statement that is very Parklife-like in its stupidity. I'm well aware that SHE is a WOMAN who has gone to great lengths to pretend she isn't. What more do I need to know about it than what is so incredibly obvious?
"That alone should disqualify you from making judgments upon their lives."
You and your "judgement" crap. You don't know anything about what Adolph Hitler's life was like. Are you going to pretend you have no opinion about his actions? Don't be pompous ass. Judgement is for God. I don't judge people, but I am more than free to have opinions about their actions. You certainly have them about mine, making Neil's suggestion of hypocrisy so right on the money.
"I have to wonder - why did I come back here?"
So you could make another attempt at demonizing those with whom you do not agree in an attempt to act superior. Again, who do you think you're kidding?
"In all honesty, I can state categorically that I find the company detestable."
Why? None of us claimed to be experts! What a pompous clown to come here and make that condescending first comment and then dare to suggest that WE are detestable.
"Feel morally superior to the Chaz Bonos and Chers of this world to your hearts' content."
We can't. We're too burdened by the weight of your moral superiority. What a complete asshole. Your entire presence here has been one of posturing yourself in moral superiority. All the while we're merely speaking out on the lie of sex-change people like Bono. She is NOT a man.
As for crossing the city, that's some extra-special tolerance and non-judgmentalism you've got there.
By the way Geoffrey,
We can indeed judge behaviors - actions. We can judge that mutilating oneself demonstrates a person has some real emotional problems, we can judge that it also does not change what a person's real gender is. Chaz is a woman, will always be a woman.
Here's a piece on a junior transgender boy who wants to join the Girl Scouts -- http://christocentric.com/main/?p=3805 . Geoffrey and Co. will be so happy!
The link also has a great story about a transgender who "switched back" to his original sex after finding Jesus. There is hope for Chaz et al, but not from world-lovers like Geoffrey, Jim, etc. who define love as doing whatever makes you happy right now.
So now it is "HATE" to tell the truth? Pull out the old hate card to marginalize all debate.
Hi Glen,
Don't mind the troll. Parklife just enjoys making baseless accusations because he's a clinical idiot. He's never once engaged in anything akin to a meaningful conversation since he's fouled the site from his initial visit. I generally delete his inane comments as soon as I see them unless one is worthy of special derision and mockery, as the best manner of dealing with him is simply to point and laugh. He's like my personal village idiot. If you see a comment by him before I delete it and you wish to respond to it, copy and paste the section in question so that your response won't seem weird after I delete his comment.
We can judge that mutilating oneself demonstrates a person has some real emotional problems
I was born with an appendix. I had it removed. Was that mutilating myself? I was born with wisdom teeth. I had them taken out. Mutilation?
My brother had skin grafts. They took skin from his thighs and put it on the top of his feet after he had been scalded. Mutilation?
Mastectomy. Mutilation? Implants. Plastic surgery. Mutilation? Gall bladder removal? Nose job?
I may have knee replacements. Mutilation?
Jim,
So you compare necessary surgery with mutilation to change external appearance from male to female? That demonstrates a real problem with YOUR thinking process - no absolute morality, let alone common sense. Typical for liberals.
Really, Jim. If you want to make comparisons, there are better examples in the area of cosmetic surgery rather than what you've tried to pass as in any way equal. But even there, though many would say that much of what Michael Jackson did wanders deeply into serious emotional issues, there is still much that is beneficial, like breast reduction to ease stress on the back, or even improvements on what are really birth defects.
But a sex-change is an emotional issue, the result of dysfunction, not a true problem with the physical body. Her problem wasn't that her nose was huge.
As if that wasn't enough....
There was this story on the internet today. What's worse with this story is the usual crap about "being me" after having drawn a lifelong commitment from a woman and with her, producing two kids, of whom he insists are dealing with it well. Yeah. Sure they are. What a selfish asshole.
But now, the jerk wants to compete in bodybuilding competitions against actual women. This isn't the first time we've seen this type of thing, as there was that tennis player from some years back who did the same thing.
Just think of how much worse the world would be if everyone was to give in to their urges rather than to transcend them in order to become as close to what God wants us to be as we possibly can. It's difficult to think that the world hasn't had enough of that already. But some here are in favor of justifying anything and demonizing those who see the error of doing so as "judgmental".
It's quite clear that He cannot come too soon.
That body builder is a man, period. This is totally unfair to the women in this "sport." This is really, really perverted.
These people are all self-focused. They don't care about anyone but themselves.
Parklife,
You seem to lack common sense of any sort, and don't seem to be able to comprehend what you read.
must be nice to live in your world. Everything is black and white.
Well, according to God, everything morally is either right or wrong, "black and white." Do you have a better moral standard you follow?
I don't understand your reference to wisdom teeth - what has removing them to do with sexual mutilation for fun?
Chaz never broke the law, yet you drone on and on..
Actually she broke God's moral law.
What about that lady who had reconstructive surgery on her face.
Plastic surgery done solely for vanity purposes is also wrong. But it does not fall into the league of total mutilation and sexual immorality associated with it. Your inability to see the difference just demonstrates the depth of your depravity.
Reconstructive surgery essentially fixes something which is broken. It attempt to restore a bodily feature to as close to its original form as close to properly functional as possible.
Sexual reassignment surgery is not reconstructive. It is not fixing something which is broken. What is (for lack of a better term) broken was her mind. There is something in there that tells Bono to alter a perfectly functioning body. What needs fixing is the part of her mind that has convinced her there is a problem with her body.
Parklife,
I have no idea who the French lady is, but as John said, reconstructive surgery is for repairs - not vanity.
Ah, so now you are denigrating one’s heritage? Typical bully; makes you feel good doesn’t it!
Reconstructing a face or cleft palate is no more about vanity than fixing a broken arm. And you know better - you are being intentionally stupid.
Wearing clothing of heritage - or in the example of me it is also a uniform when playing bagpipes - has nothing to do with immorality, which is the only thing we address in people's personal lives.
We are indeed called to judge immoral behavior for what it is; we are called to expose error and proclaim truth. You have no moral standard by which to make any of your proclamations other than just your opinion.
Glen,
Don't waste your time with Parkie. You're dealing with a head of lettuce, a dried pile in a cow pasture, a clinical idiot. He has no intention of actually discussing intelligently or in an adult manner because he isn't capable.
Marshall,
I know, but I like to make points which demonstrate his inability to think cohesively, intelligently, even in conjunction with his stated worldview. :oD
He's the kind I end up banning from my blog because he adds nothing constructive in the way of debate.
It's a kilt. If he wore something under it, it would be a skirt.
Just for clarification, in case someone just has to chime in, it is indeed a skirt. A kilt is a type of skirt. And, the thought seems to be that it came to Scotland from the Roman soldiers when they were in Britain way back in the 2nd century. Of course Roman soldiers needed something besides the robes/togas, etc to be able to freely move about in combat, and they didn't have trousers back then!
Parklife, you have just told a huge lie about me. There is nowhere on my blogs where you will ever see me condemn any other culture unless it is for its immorality.
And your spin on my kilt is nothing but lies also.
Ma.. which do you dislike more... knowing that you treat people poorly or being called out on it?
Almost a good question, troll-boy, so I'll respond to it.
You are in no position to accuse anyone of treating others poorly, as you have been doing that since your first appearance. This is similar to feodor and why some thought the two of you might be the same person. (Still not certain that isn't true, but who cares?) That I treat shit-heels like you poorly is merely my response to the comments you post which beg for such replies. Thus, treating you poorly is actually doing what you insist upon. Ironic, isn't it? You'll note that I haven't gone through with comment moderation whereby I could delete your comments before they even appear on the blog at all. THAT is because I still entertain the very unlikely fantasy that you'll grow up, put on your big-boy pants and post a mature and thoughtful comment meant to seriously engage in the topic at hand. Instead, however, you prefer to act like a punk and make all manner of false statements about me and my guests, as well as completely stupid comments meant to suggest a cleverness of which you are most sadly devoid. You think you are making fun of me, but you don't seem to realize that the target of such antics is supposed to be the one who looks bad. But as you are so pathetic in your attempts, it is like you are purposely pissing in your own face. And that's so sad that deleting your comments is also a protection against rhetorical self-mutilation. It's obvious that if you must post something, it would be far simpler for you to type out, "Hey everybody! Look at me! I'm a fucking idiot!" for that is the effect your comments have on the reader.
What I dislike, you putrid little prick, is your presence as you prefer it to be: a childish and sorry excuse for a human being. As such, I have no problem with the likes of you "calling me on" anything. You are irrelevant and seem to enjoy being so.
Ma.. your comment.. Im embarrassed for you.
The amount of hate and vile that you manage to throw up on your own blog, on such a regular basis, is astounding. I sincerely hope that you find some sort of peace in your life. But, of course that is up to you.
And still, like usual, nothing to support the charge of hate. Of course, troll, I'm sure you'll point to comments directed solely at you. But again, your own level of commentary is designed to provoke such responses, indeed, begging for them. Your job, but you're too dishonest to take it, is to provide evidence of hate toward anyone. But you know that's a fool's errand (which, ironically, would seem ideal for you) because you damned well know there can be no success. The fact is clear: I don't hate anyone and have never given any reason for anyone with the least shred of honesty and integrity to believe it is true. I don't even hate you, despite your every attempt to provoke. You're too pathetic to hate, for one thing, and for another, anyone worth hating does not deserve the effort required to expend that degree of emotion.
No. There's no hatred here, except that brought by people like yourself. You're just too stupid to recognize it in yourself and way too hateful to know that it doesn't exist in those you hate.
I am quite at peace, little troll-boy. That partly explains my continued welcome to you to actually engage in serious discussion despite your abuse of that welcome evident in every comment you post. Face it, small child. Your efforts are wasted here.
"nothing to support the charge of hate."
This is a joke..
Then it should be easy enough to provide evidence to support the charge. Good luck with that. While you're at it, perhaps you could provide evidence that Mark is a racist. Or that I am. That's another baseless charge you like to throw about. Another is "homophobe". So rather than "LOL" one more time like a freakin' lunatic, perhaps you can prove an accusation rather than simply throw them out there. Until then, comment deletion will resume.
"comment deletion will resume"
Ma.. do whatever you want. I fully expect you to delete everything I post. And just as you continue to delete, I will continue to comment. Such is life.
"Then it should be easy enough to provide evidence..."
I have many many times. Honestly Im tired of posting about how you are homophobic. But you have a nasty habit of calling people derogatory names. Sure, you seem to have an excuse. But, you seem to have an excuse for everything you do. Right now, you seem incapable of dealing with a DWTS contestant in an appropriate manner. As for Mark, I think he doesn’t mind dropping the n-word. This could be the genesis of why I started calling him a racist. Going forward, when you make an inappropriate comment, I will be happy to point it out to you. Just for fun, I did take a trip back in time. And it took you inside of a month to suggest that somebody you disagreed with was an idiot. To that I say cheers.
"I fully expect you to delete everything I post."
You should knowing that's the consequence of intentionally posting bad attempts at cleverness, substance-free drivel and baseless accusations.
"And just as you continue to delete, I will continue to comment."
But you don't really comment, do you troll-boy? No. You post what I've described above, otherwise known as "worthless crap".
I said:
"Then it should be easy enough to provide evidence..."
To which you responded:
"I have many many times."
The trouble here is, are you the freakin' liar this suggests, or are you the clinical idiot such as I've commonly classified you and you simply don't know what "evidence" means. In the context of a blog discussion, it is to substantiate a claim, to explain why you believe the claim is accurate. Thus, to say "you said XYZ and that's homophobic" is insufficient. It's plain that you wish to believe that is so, but you make no effort whatsoever to explain just what makes the statement homophobic. In other words, it isn't homophobic merely because you say it is. Thus, no evidence has been presented. Only the claim of a fool has been presented.
Furthermore, taking words out of context, such as, "We hate" without the words that follow, and then pointing to it as evidence that I am hateful is abject dishonesty (which means you're a freaking liar). It is not evidence that I am (or we are) hateful. Instead, it's a lazy, if not desperate, attempt to posture yourself as correct, when you're worlds away from it.
So you've never explained how my position on the sinfulness and psychologically abnormal nature of active homosexual behavior is equal to any kind of phobia or hatred for the sad souls who pretend to believe there is nothing wrong with acting on their urges.
"But you have a nasty habit of calling people derogatory names."
I call YOU derogatory names, because you insist upon it. So does feodor. Are you alluding to my use of a legitimate contraction of a word used accurately? "Homo" is not derogatory because activists and enablers say it is. This is merely a tactic employed to stifle legitimate debate. I'm not bound by such whining.
"...you seem to have an excuse for everything you do."
You confuse "excuse" with "explanation". Two distinctly different words. I offer no "excuses" for what I do, that is, offer no justifications for wrongdoing, especially to clinical idiots who wouldn't understand anyway. I will, as the case might demand, offer an explanation, as I do here, so as to be better understood, though I hold no such hope for you.
"Right now, you seem incapable of dealing with a DWTS contestant in an appropriate manner."
Not right now, or ever, will I expect an explanation for this absurd accusation. There was absolutely nothing inappropriate with anything I've said regarding the post, which has to do with a person lying to themselves, to others and the enablers who will join in the lie. The point is a simple one, though a simp like you is incapable of understanding: This is a female pretending to be a man and hoping the world will join in the pretense.
"As for Mark, I think he doesn’t mind dropping the n-word. This could be the genesis of why I started calling him a racist."
Two blatant lies here: 1st, that Mark "doesn't mind" dropping the "n-word". You couldn't know that even if he typed the words, "I don't mind dropping the 'n-word'". And you've never established anything that would prove he is in the least bit a racist. EVER. The second lie is that you pretend to use this to justify calling him a racist. There is no justification and you call him that because you're an asshole with no legitimate way to denigrate a person with whom you disagree.
"Going forward, when you make an inappropriate comment, I will be happy to point it out to you."
Going forward, you won't be able to accuse anyone of making an inappropriate comment if you don't also provide a detailed explanation of what exactly makes it inappropriate.
"Just for fun, I did take a trip back in time. And it took you inside of a month to suggest that somebody you disagreed with was an idiot."
And obviously, just to prove my point, and the fact that you're an incredible asshole (it may have been you I was talking about), you have once again accused without proof, no link, no nothing. To that I say, "typical".
And thus ends Parkie the troll-boy's presence at Marshall Art's. I hope no one has suffered too much nausea.
Post a Comment