My experiment with touching my toe into the pool of conservative ideology is largely over. One too many worshipers of Ayn Rand showing up on "The Atheist Conservative's" page? Was that the tipping point? Maybe.
Being away from wastrels from the past, and their abusive friends, has helped. Plus being married, having two kids, and a wife with zero association with all the crap I've seen has helped also. Still taking a step back. But becoming more compassionate & open to hearing what the left has to say. The right is generally increasingly poopy smelling. The left, not so much. So, I'm a left-leaning moderate as of now.
Showing posts with label left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left. Show all posts
Friday, August 8, 2014
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Has your life been happier after leaving Mormonism?
Questions: "...How has life been since you left the LDS church? Do you feel like you're happier?"
Yes, I'm happier, for many reasons.
I'm also upset, for other reasons.
Happy because:
1. I have a wife & kid who aren't Mormon.
2. I'm out.
3. I can touch my John Thomas.
4. I can engage in oral sex.
5. I can drink coffee, tea, and cabernet sauvignon wine.
6. I can watch Destricted, or Caligula without shame or guilt.
7. My kid won't be a Mormon.
8. I'm more intellectually honest.
9. I'm more emotionally honest.
10. I'm no longer in the soul-destroying culture of Mormonism.
Upset because:
A. The "recovery" groups like Atheists of Utah, Unitarian Universalism, CFI, Humanist groups, Minnesota Atheists, Atheism Plus, and even your local Stonewall center (for those so sucked in), are all de facto ultra-leftist religions, with their own unquestionable dogmas & doctrines. Denying human nature & human history, while claiming to be skeptical. Assuming that everything IS permitted when there is no god, even though it's not.
B. The defeatist Krausian mayfly theory of human existence is out there in the secular community, teaching atheists to be just as nihilistic as your average evangelical Christian.
C. Finding that the left can be just as abusive as the right.
D. Finding that the left is so incredibly myopic about the entire scope of human experience. Only the hippie tribes are valued. But desert tribes, or even Chinese tribes, oh, we must ignore them. Hippie colored glasses slant their view.
E. On the other hand, I'm also upset that the Mormon Church continues to destroy the lives of children & adults, via wide publication in many languages of incredibly abusive books like Miracle of Forgiveness. I'm also upset that sexually intrusive interviews still happen with children & adults.
More: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Yes, I'm happier, for many reasons.
I'm also upset, for other reasons.
Happy because:
1. I have a wife & kid who aren't Mormon.
2. I'm out.
3. I can touch my John Thomas.
4. I can engage in oral sex.
5. I can drink coffee, tea, and cabernet sauvignon wine.
6. I can watch Destricted, or Caligula without shame or guilt.
7. My kid won't be a Mormon.
8. I'm more intellectually honest.
9. I'm more emotionally honest.
10. I'm no longer in the soul-destroying culture of Mormonism.
Upset because:
A. The "recovery" groups like Atheists of Utah, Unitarian Universalism, CFI, Humanist groups, Minnesota Atheists, Atheism Plus, and even your local Stonewall center (for those so sucked in), are all de facto ultra-leftist religions, with their own unquestionable dogmas & doctrines. Denying human nature & human history, while claiming to be skeptical. Assuming that everything IS permitted when there is no god, even though it's not.
B. The defeatist Krausian mayfly theory of human existence is out there in the secular community, teaching atheists to be just as nihilistic as your average evangelical Christian.
C. Finding that the left can be just as abusive as the right.
D. Finding that the left is so incredibly myopic about the entire scope of human experience. Only the hippie tribes are valued. But desert tribes, or even Chinese tribes, oh, we must ignore them. Hippie colored glasses slant their view.
E. On the other hand, I'm also upset that the Mormon Church continues to destroy the lives of children & adults, via wide publication in many languages of incredibly abusive books like Miracle of Forgiveness. I'm also upset that sexually intrusive interviews still happen with children & adults.
More: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Conservative Naturalism: Don't put your willie in the deadly destructive glory hole of the left. You might get both an STD and an MTD
Conservative Naturalism. Make some room please, in the universe of ideas.
[Collections of several recent posts from the past couple of days, advocating for the value of conservative naturalism.]
Here's one prime example of why the "secular left" is no solution or answer to the religious right:
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/the-comments-pz-myers-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
P.Z. Myers. What a bummer.
No easy solution or social group to associate with after leaving Mormonism.
-------------------------
I question liberal dogma.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
Can we find a cure?
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/
...to the LDC?
Time will tell, as will reproduction.
Who will care that you were alive, in 100 years?
If you're straight, have some kids. Write a book. Create some good art or science!
If you're gay, devote your life to service oriented pursuits, helping everyone especially the crazy straights who happen to value reproduction (god fucking forbid!). Create, if you can, some damn good art that amuses & provokes both gay & straight people, and which annoys people also. Annoyance is the key to good art - both straight and gay. The more annoying the better. This advise holds for both straight & gay artists.
Try to help your kids learn about the value of science, so that we can help the garden we've been given survive.
Survival is the bottom line.
Sex is set up in humans to be selfish - WISELY selfish.
If we AREN'T sucked into kid stuff, it's EASY to lead a petty dead end life, straight or gay.
Dunk straight aunt with no kids, who used to call my father while drunk all the time?
A zero on the Great Mandala.
Angel Reading Gay Nephew with a convicted pedo for a friend, nephew who spends his life posting near naked photos on FB?
Mostly a zero on the Great Mandala.
Service oriented gay guy who helps us with we go on vacation, and who has a highly service oriented career.
A reasonable place on the Mandala tapestry.
Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde - mostly reasonable places from what I can tell so far.
Roman Polanski, should have his placed burned off the Mandala.
Joseph Smith also.
David Koresh also, and Jim Jones. Should be wiped CLEAN from the cloth.
What will your contribution be?
There are conservative fully naturalistic reasons to be concerned about birth control, sperm banks, and the forced equivalence of gay marriage & adoption.
If all respondents have in their tool box are ad hominem attacks, I'm acutely uninterested in those types of responses.
If you can change my mind, then change it. Otherwise, if I'm annoying, too bad. I'll still be on the net transmitting. Whether you listen or not is your choice. I just advocate that you find some useful place on the tapestry before your little tiny chance is gone.
-------------------------
Political history:
Dad liberal. He was always upset w/conservative stance of most Mormons.
I voted democrat while Mormon, and after leaving their church.
Went on an Alice in wonderland style journey after leaving.
Checked out nudists, polys, Portland sex party people, gay bars and parties.
Finally got married to a down to Earth socially moderate woman from China. She's atheist.
One kid. Another on the way.
Still like social welfare politically (Obamacare - w/a pref. for single payer),
Ayn Rand was an idiot who knew nothing about human nature. On the other hand Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.
Perhaps like the South Park guys I hate conservatives, but I hate liberals even more. However I'm not libertarian, nor do I have "everything should be forcibly equal" gay colored glasses on.
I'm a truth and survival advocate. I care more about the truth (and general human survival) than group memberships or sucking up to any one group leader.
Perhaps I am following in the footsteps of my rebel father to some extent. But I also highly value the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Carl Sagan.
I don't have empathy for wastrels. Take your place on the tapestry of life if and how you can, and while you have a chance.
I'm not a gaybot (similar to a mobot, but more gay).
Hey in a democracy in theory the people get to decide - except when naive judges take away our rights.
I know it's a balancing act between inherent rights and not. But until parthenogenesis is a natural reality, not everything will be equal.
-------------------------
Knock knock knock on the sperm bank door - the anxious lesbians wait outside. Non married to a person of the opposite sex women probably should be denied sperm from strange buildings such as those.
I can see why the religious right are upset. I'm not for a gay "marriage" ban. More for an alliance that promotes straight family life. The gays can do the interior decorating. That's ok. But regular natural families should be our top priority. Not STFU Parents woman on Jian G's show.
Where's the socially conservative gays? Somewhere with the log cabin group?
-------------------------
Reach into the tool box of meme set defense mechanisms. Pull out one tool, after another, after another, after another.
Down deep in your meme set defense bag is the more heavy hammer & sharper instruments.
But, mostly what you've got so far is one logical fallacy, after another, after another. Smoke. Refusing to read what the other person says, or lazy name calling.
No wonder Mormons & other conservative religionists are wary of the other side. Wary for many reasons. And, regarding some of those reasons, I don't blame them!
They should fear for the safety of their children. Quite true. If your children get sucked into the "loving" arms of the LDC, they could well get AIDS or some other STD, become a druggie, "choose" to not have kids because of LDC ideology at school, "choose" to become gay or a mixed-sex freak, become destructive in other ways, etc.
Don't get an STD (sexually transmitted disease) or an MTD (memetically transmitted disease) by putting your willie into the glory hole of the left - it's no panacea.
-------------------------
What's the balance between straight marriage, straight family life, and not?
13.8 billion years to 10 years.
10 years or so of lesbians knocking, knocking, knocking on the sperm bank door.
13.8 billion where a woman had to find a man and vice versa.
Quite a comparison.
Liberal denial of human nature, and our long history.
Traitors to their 13.8 billion year history. A repugnant death cult. THIS is liberalism for you TODAY!
-------------------------
[Responding to a post by one man who is exhibiting traits of currently being held down by LDC ideology:]
Slow motion suicide, helping rob YOU of a place on the tapestry of life:
"...there are perhaps other reasons why homosexual behavior may be increasingly cropping up in human and other species. There is a certain 'carrying load' of animal species and homosexuality may actually be nature's way of bringing things back into balance."
"Humanity is in no danger of dying out from lack of reproduction. It may be seriously endangering itself though, through overpopulation. Personally, those who are hysterical about the 'gay agenda' are simply fear-mongering in order to exert social control over a behavior that they find...icky? I have many gay friends. Their agenda is quite simply. To enjoy the same legal protections in their relationships that heterosexuals enjoy. That is the sum total of their agenda."
"To assume that procreation is the only societally building relationship ignores all of the couples who are for one reason or another unable to procreate. The argument that homosexual relationships are unproductive are meritless since there are millions of gay people who are functioning and productive members of society."Responses to the above LDC meme set collection expression:
1. Your answer proves my point. To support the equivalence of "gay marriage" you MUST advocate that most people NOT have children. You must advocate for the value of childless marriage - and that such a state may actually be good. Slow motion suicide. A death cult. No other words for it.
These people have a point:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
and http://overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101
Lurking behind LDC dogma are things like China's mandatory one child policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
Totalitarian eugenics.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/margaret-sanger-also-amoral-fuck.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/Margaret%20Sanger
An ideology of death, for the individual, and for society. The only fools who are listening are the liberals. Suicide for their own culture. Perhaps that's not so bad?
People WILL ignore you! They are ignoring you! They will continue to ignore you! Thank goodness!
Take your place on the Great Mandala, or Not!. It's up to you! I just advocate that you do. Don't allow yourself to be robbed of life & key foundational life experiences by LDC dogma!
2. Meritless?
False equivalences are the meritless, dangerous, destructive doctrinal points of the left.
Hey, I'm quite familiar with the dogma of the LDC. I've seen it first hand. My sister is a victim. My gay nephew is one. You are probably one too. I ask that you not be.
13.8 billion years. To 10. 13.8 billion years. To 10. Quite a ratio.
Traitors to life & to your own history.
"Carrying load" - may as well commit suicide now. Too many people? Let's be childfree.
May as well commit suicide. Hey, if your choice holds, the net-result will be pretty much the same.
But please DON'T! Have a kid if you can, using good old fashioned reproduction! And if you cannot, then help support those who do! Don't be a traitor to your own history.
Conservative naturalism. Advocacy for life. Honoring our true history, as 13.8 billion year evolved highly intelligent sexual animals. But sometimes our neural networks can send us right off the fucking rails and into a ditch. The LDC is one such ditch.
Please avoid it. Embrace life. Is that too much to ask?
-------------------------
Further liberal-meme-set expression posted:
"A.) Homosexuality is not maladaptive to psychosocial health. B.) There is no evidence that allowing gays to marry increases rates of homosexual behavior. In short, allowing gays and lesbians to marry the person they love will have no statistically significant negative impact on individuals or society as a whole."My response:
A. Tell that to the people robbed of their place on the tapestry of life by LDC ideology.
B. Are we sure? The endeavor of science cannot yet be trusted on the question, because of the strong bias against a non-PC non-LDC honest answer from science.
No impact? Unless it does. Straightness is not honored in such a household. An imposition of destructive LDC ideology is by default imposed on the kid. Child abuse to grow up in such a household. More ready exposure to "gay culture."
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html
A betrayal of basic human nature.
13.8 billion years. 10 years.
13.8 billion years. 10 years.
13.8 billion years. 10 years.
LDC denial of basic human nature.
What if a child needs a mommy & a daddy - by their very nature?
Can an LDC-member "scientist" ask this question?
Is the "right" right? Can you ask, as a true honest scientist?
Not easily.
Not and keep your current friend circle.
The Stonewall warriors are there, waiting to POUNCE on anyone who questions their dogma & agenda.
It's a war. And war is no time for science to inconveniently show that the leftist side may be wrong - wrong in ANY way.
Not science.
A betrayal of natural history.
A preference for slow-motion suicide.
A death cult.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
response to CBC and Jian Ghomeshi about STFU Parents
for my own records a copy of a post I just put on the CBC's website, here in it's uncensored form:
STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.
Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.
Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.
Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"
If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.
The site: http://www.stfuparentsblog.com
and fb page: https://www.facebook.com/STFUParents
Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.
Related posts: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
Jian & the CBC brought us this page, this info, about this crass woman and her pages. So funny. So cute. No, not really.
------------
Related post:
STFU, "STFU Parents"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/stfu-stfu-parents.html
STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.
Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.
Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.
Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"
If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.
The site: http://www.stfuparentsblog.com
and fb page: https://www.facebook.com/STFUParents
Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.
Related posts: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
Jian & the CBC brought us this page, this info, about this crass woman and her pages. So funny. So cute. No, not really.
------------
Related post:
STFU, "STFU Parents"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/stfu-stfu-parents.html
Thursday, August 1, 2013
response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine
Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?
As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html
Should Atheists be trying to have more children?
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
Should Atheists be trying to have more children?
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.
"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
8-1-2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag
Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the left.
Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects of the perceived "gay agenda."
On when bi or homosexual men cheat on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children" should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.
Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.
Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.
July 19, 2013 - 7:44am
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents
Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.
Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:
Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular advocacyReply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things through).
Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2
Jonathan
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:
>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the----end of quote
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable. Because we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the room. We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac. Mtg.!!) when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker. The serving of alcohol is another
>reason. Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue
And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:
----quote beings
Howdy,
I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:
1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.
2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.
3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.
4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.
So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.
It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.
I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.
I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.
I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.
Real people who show up are the most important.
I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.
A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.
A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.
A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.
We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.
So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.
Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.
I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.
A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
level of veiling; Neff's Canyon; atheists having children & atheist family values
level of veiling; Breasts documentary; Neff's Canyon; Bill Maher & having children (octomom); atheists should have more children; Let's value life; on Margaret Sanger again; "don't judge me!" - why not?; Unitarianism, Mormonism; family values - the left should embrace those words again as well. July 10, 2013
More on Margaret Sanger:
Margaret Sanger - as amoral as Peter Singer sadly
Bill Maher should have kids, before he makes one more comment about people who have them.
Atheist Family Values:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
Friday, September 21, 2012
"The left" and Islamic fundamentalism
Speaking as a left-leaning anti-authoritarian myself:
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
What is up with the left wing in America?
I think the Iraq war made them very upset, very upset indeed. So much so that they are now engaging in several logical fallacies and conflationary actions themselves - primarily in response to their own hatred for the right, their hatred for people like George W. Bush and so on.
But, one thing the left wing lacks is experience with what it's like to live in a real religion. They have no idea what it's like. Their primarily experience with religion is light and fluffy. So, they have no concept of what it's like to be a woman or a man living in a sexually repressed culture - in other words what it's like to live in an Islamic country.
Remember George Galloway?
Here's a debate between him & Hitchens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6804714963382152969
Galloway is a buddy of Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now(?):
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/canadian_judge_upholds_government_decision_to
Remember Iran, where they kill people for all sorts of otherwise trivial reasons? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Iran
Do you know Galloway works for Iran's Press TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySTJLeMN4M0
What's up with the connection between the "left" and Islamic fundamentalism? Galloway's own actions by working for Press TV shows they are now the same thing.
I don't want to be a tool of the left or the right. Not of Israel nor of Palestine.
Dictators should be opposed & defeated. All of them, everywhere.
Freedom of speech should resign supreme, as should the right to offend cultish religions & their brain washed followers.
People who live in cultural prisons should be freed.
Offensive speech should never be banned. Rather, it should simply be responded to with other speech.
Just because the right to say certain things in certain countries has been and is being abridged, that doesn't make it right. Living together as a community doesn't mean forced silence. That's no solution for anything. It just causes feelings to be suppressed - to simmer until they boil over. Let everyone speak. Let there be a crucible. That's what true democracy is all about. That's what science is about. And only then can everyone truly figure out what is right & what is wrong, and separate fact from fiction.
Do we have "democracy now?" Can we have "democracy now?" We could well ask Amy Goodman and her buddy George Galloway. But can we have true democracy within Islamic sharia, where even the supposed moderates cry for censorship of cartoons and films? No.
Sadly, and unfortunately, the ultra left now IS the same thing as Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic sharia. This happened due to anger, ignorance, and stupidity. What's the solution? Freedom of speech & education. Left originated censorship and self hatred is just as unappealing as right originated censorship and self hatred.
------------
Oh, and p.s., a reading of the posts on the following page indicates that Pakistan is a prison. And so is Iran.
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/anti-islam-film-protests-10701
Before September 11, 2001 I never thought much about the Muslim world. But the prison they live in made them so upset, some of their representatives lashed out in anger & violence on that day. Bush may have overreacted with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan. Anyway...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)