Thoughts on: Scouting in America. Maybe they'll be admitting gays, but probably not gays or masturbators anytime soon. Further thoughts on Elevatorgate.
Scouting in America is essentially the Mormon Mountain Camping Society. Nothing more.
Welcome to the world of blue balls, prostate cancer, and inflamedepididymides& seminal vesicles.
And welcome once again to the world of sexual shaming, first brought to you by religious fucks, and now later by New Age nut jobs.
In Karezza they really really like orgasm avoidance, and fear about the natural hormonal & neurochemical cycles that come with sex.
One good example of all this bull is at the site reuniting.info.
Worrying about orgasming too soon is one thing. Yes, you should try to go longer. But not too long! Going days on end with painful blue balls, or having your partner "milk" your prostate so that you can avoid orgasm - that is wacky, strange, unnatural, and not healthy.
...karezza is a gentle, affectionate form of intercourse in which orgasm is not the goal, and ideally does not occur in either partner while making love...
Karezza is not gentle. Worrying about whether you can avoid orgasming AT ALL is not gentle nor loving. Karezza is not kind. Fearing orgasm, and having orgasm avoidance as the IDEAL situation, is not loving nor kind. Kerezza is dangerous claptrap bullshit.
"...Marnia admits that she and her husband are not religious, both enjoy orgasms, and feel no sexual guilt. They simply feel very convicted about this one idea: orgasm addiction is an undercover problem, creating chaos between our sheets!..."
...misleading doubletalk. And being fearful of sex the same way one fears cocaine really is abusive. Sex is about life. Sex is about love. Sex is love. And so is orgasm. "Chaos between the sheets" - yes, that is part of sex. Don't be afraid of the wonderful chaos. Don't be afraid of the cycles of life. The ups and downs of life that come through sex - yes, you should learn to deal with them & embrace them, not be afraid of them.
Teaching people to avoid orgasm, as the ideal situation, really is abusive. That's the bottom line.
"...if someone said lets have sex but you won’t
have an orgasm, I think most of us would rather go to bed...So on that note, I
call Bullshit on Karezza, because sex without an orgasm is like hunger with no
food"
reuniting.info and lds.org - the same shit just in different clothes, one from fucking hippies, and the other from fucking squares. Don't be sucked in by shame based quakery, from any side or source.
To recap:
Orgasm is good. Orgasms are good. Orgasms help your marriage! Orgasms help you be happy! Orgasms are healthy! Orgasms SHOULD be part of sex, most every time! Oh, and masturbation with orgasms is good also!
Yes, delaying orgasm can be fun and very useful - up to a point. Eventually you, your body, and your partner need an orgasm, and you should not be afraid of that either!
People are people & savages are no more noble than anyone else.
Also people born here are just as much a 'native' as anyone else. That's
what native means - born in a given place. Also everyone here is a
descendant of immigrants, whether it's 100 or 500 or 10,000 or 20,000 years ago. And children should not be saddled nor blamed for the sins of
their parents or people who happen to have the same skin color. Again
people are people regardless of color. Sometimes noble & sometimes
not so much.
The Salt Lake City Public Library & several other public & private groups have invited slick Islam apologist Tariq Ramadan to speak. Speech title: "Islam and Human Rights: How will the Arab Spring bring Peace to the Middle East?" Some of the sponsors of his March 20, 2013 visit: Friends
of the City Library, University of Utah, Westminster College, Gandhi
Alliance for Peace, with more listed at http://www.slcpl.lib.ut.us/events/view/1965/ My commentary in response:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist & I agree. Maybe everyone is a little bit of a eugenicist also. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, apparently wrote a rather distasteful article on the issue. Check out page 107 of the following document:
And a more readable version: http://hawaii.edu/religion/courses/sanger.htm "The main objects of the Population Congress would be: a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..." ---end of quote
Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?
I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.
In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.
Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.
Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.
Here's a video about how, what is essentially, yet another evil Santa Claus view of a god exists in Islam. Making a list and checking it twice, to find out who's naughty or nice - and burning in hell forever the naughty.
The first program about Iceland was more thoughtful. The second program though contained highly frantic and angry arguments on the anti-porn side. It's also true that the pay-for-porn industry has a corrosive aspect to it.
Speaking as an atheist, exmormon, & naturalist, there's actually several aspects at play here. But one thing I am reminded of is what people did in Pompeii. Has Iceland already banned films such as Caligula, Intimacy, or Destricted?
The frantic fear of human sexuality is sadly rampant, and as per today's program it's clear that such fear is not only present in the religious right, it's also present in "progressives" who appear just as eager to micro-manage what people do on the Internet as abusive fools like former Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball tried to do.
Here's relevant reviews of his hate filled book on sexuality: http://www.amazon.com/The-Miracle-Forgiveness-Spencer-Kimball/product-reviews/0884944441/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0 and the content of his evil hate filled book: http://www.lds.org/braille/The%20Miracle%20of%20Forgiveness.txt and the consequences: http://www.affirmation.org/suicide_info/sin_and_death_in_mormon_country.shtml Online dating sites can waste a great deal of time. Online porn sites can indeed waste time also, and skew a person's view of normal natural human sexuality. On the other hand there is a need to have sites similar to youtube which do allow for free and open sharing of sexual content between adults. So, how can such sites be paid for if not by advertising? How about these "progressives" who want to micro-manage what people see online pay to start a non-profit advertisement free versions of sites like xtube or youporn? That sounds like a good alternative. Don't like what Manwin does online? Then by F start your own advertisement-free web 2.0 adult video sharing site, rather than trying to shut down what you will not be able to shut down. What is porn? Uncensored viewing of all aspects of human sexuality? Or is it just the commercialization of such? Mormons would view any viewing of sex in video or picture form as porn. Maybe in Iceland their definition is more limited. But the bottom line is that no amount of censorship will keep adults from seeing what they want to see. No amount of frantic hand wringing, either from the frantic Christian/Islamic religious right, or from the frantic feminist controlling & micromanaging left, is going to stop that. But parents can and should take steps to protect their children from the highly commercialized, inaccurate, and violent content.
Recently Geert Wilders visited Australia. What was the response? Violent protests & slander against Mr. Wilders. Funny how easy it is for Islam-apologists to throw stones, figuratively & literally against people who already have to live with round the clock security due to past & present threats from Islamists. Geert Wilders.Ayaan Hirsi Ali.Sam Harris.Danish cartoonists & editors.
Ellis's article is a terribly inaccurate, prejudiced, and in my view a libel-ridden rant about Wilders. Guilt by association. Painting with a broad brush. All the things the reporter-writer may well claim to hate. Is the 'far right' in favor of leaving Islam and becoming atheistic? Are they in favor of gay or women's rights? Islamophobia? How about Scientologyphobia? Mormonphobia? Cultphobia? Or even Wildersphobia, truthphobia, or factsphobia?
Using terms like Islamophobia, and the other abusive ad-hominem and guilt-by-claimed-association attacks in this article - it's a way of shutting the conversation down.
Should Islamic people leave Islam for atheism or maybe liberal Christianity? Would that make their lives better?
Examine the recent work of Sam Harris, and his book The Moral Landscape. In his book Harris advocates for comparing religions & world views on a scale that measures happiness & well being. Are women & men really happy if they are taught to fear human sexuality, where women are bagged from head to toe, and where young men are taught in a de facto way that the only way they can actually have a relationship with a woman is to engage in murderous jihad so that they can then have 72 virgins in the afterlife? Let's hope it's actually raisins instead of virgins. More info on that front from a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA
Islam is not a race. It never has been a race. It's a religion, a meme set, and all meme sets deserve to be evaluated on their merits.
On 9/11 no Christian or Jew or Hindu flew planes into buildings in New York. On 7/7 not even a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness took similar actions. Ideas matter. Doctrine matters. History matters. Facts matter. And what people actually believe matters.
So, with Eric Ellis's rather petty, dismissive, and attacking-type article, he's attempted to blow a huge amount of smoke, all in attempt to be yet another apologist for Islam. But, the terrorists speak for themselves, and their world view can be accurately pulled directly from the Quran and from modern Islamic societies where young men & women are taught to fear normal human sexuality and to hate the outsider.
In additional to Australia Europe also has problems with allowing free speech & free thought. What is the status of free speech in Europe? Both the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (an international Islamic country organization), and the European Council consider racism to include taking smack about a religion - blasphemy laws essentially.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." as from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War
Article responding to what happened in Australia with Wilders' visit:
Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law ---how the OIC considers criticism of Islam to be racisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc
"...Whoever publicly a person or thing that is the object of veneration of a domestic existing church or religious society, or demeans a doctrine, a lawful custom or a lawful establishment of such a church or religious community may or ridiculed, behavior under which his is liable to arouse legitimate offense, with imprisonment up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates to be punished..."
Eric Allen Bell: He was working on a documentary for an Islamic mega mosque in Tennessee. Changed his mind after meeting an Egyptian Coptic Christian taxi driver and investigated Islam & Mohamed further.
We fought to save the EU countries from Hitler. But apparently they're still embracing some of his policies via outlawing the heart & roots of free speech. People in religions, particularly conservative religions like Islam & Mormonism, are in memetic prisons. Free speech is one key way to free these people, and pin headed politicians often don't understand that democracy & science & true progress depending on unhindered free speech & free though. Let there be a crucible, and let's work to get something very similar to the U.S. First Amendment enacted in the EU & elsewhere.
Even Turkey wants to elevate "Islamophobia" to the status of racism or genocide.
"If you say something which either offends me or which may cause me to change my mind, I get to punish you the same way as if you physically attacked me."
My wife & son & I attended part of the Mormon meeting this morning. We tried some bread and water, listened to a couple of hymns, and part of a boring wrote-recitation-style talk by some lady. My son's fussiness gave us an excuse to escape early.
Moohamed didn't like detractors. In his Quran he states:
"...4:56
Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the
Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for
fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty,
Wise..." http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#56 Even today, in Islamic countries atheists are threatened with death or jailed:
“Criticism of religion is not only the starting point of all criticism. It is the prerequisite of any kind of criticism. In a society where religion cannot be criticized, everything becomes religion from the length of your beard to what hand to use when wiping your backside. Where there is no criticism of religion, life and society in their entirety become religious and the littlest squeak against the existing order is an act of blasphemy.”
My familiarity with administrative hearings
and the pinheads who run them leads me to believe on first glance that
Dorner may have been wrongfully terminated, solely from the perspective
of supposedly false statements about another officer...
I
wonder if he would have been treated better by the LAPD, if he
could have then been helped in other ways with counseling, and stayed
on. Then the people Dorner killed would still be alive? It's a worthy
thought experiment to conduct, especially for people who run
administrative hearings and who run police departments...
So
far the guy is confirmed to have killed four people. So, in his case
it's good that he's dead. But everyone should realize the part they may
play in the course of actions of someone who is unstable enough to do
such things. They need to be treated with more care, and not sent to the
wolves, where they can act out in negative ways. They should be a.)
treated fairly, and b.) guided toward necessary mental health
counseling. So while Dorner is responsible for his actions, and it's good that he's dead, there is simultaneously other people who're responsible for tipping a person with a propensity for being unstable over the edge via an apparently unfairly harsh & retributive environment (at the LAPD).
During the service the following item was read, as from article 10 of the Japanese Seventeen Article Constitution, by Shōtoku Taishi:
Let us cease from wrath, and refrain from angry looks. Nor let us be
resentful when others differ from us. For all men have hearts, and each
heart has its own leanings. Their right is our wrong, and our right is
their wrong. We are not unquestionably sages, nor are they
unquestionably fools. Both of us are simply ordinary men. How can any
one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong? For we are
all, one with another, wise and foolish, like a ring which has no end.
Therefore, although others give way to anger, let us on the contrary
dread our own faults, and though we alone may be in the right, let us
follow the multitude and act like men.
Shōtoku Taishi - authored in 604 and published in 720 CE
Also we have article 6:
Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...
'How can any
one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong?' - contrast that with the claim that we should '...Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...' ?
Human morals come from a combination of socialization and genetics.
Additionally the preacher guy stated that people who come to his church from other religions should consider going back to their religions. How uneducated can a person be about what actually happens in other religions?
In response to the story here, the following comment was posted & then censored by the BBC:
Crazed old virgins have no appreciation for human nature. Mass child rape, enabled by the institutions they foster. Locking women up for being 'too pretty,' in Ireland (Magdalene asylums). These men have an abusive relationship with existence, and the institutions they lead and foster show it.
What's up BBC, is the truth too much for you? Are you willing to tell the truth? Yes, we're 'shocked,' so 'shocked' that a man who helped protect pedophiles is deciding to resign.
Everything isn't equal.
A trimmed down version was published by then later however. In any case, who do crazed old farts get to run abusive religions? Cults of personality, a religions run by men who exist in their own little self-supporting bubble. Everyone loves them. They have their own terminology. People who're critical on the outside are considered devils. It's all par for the course for such systems.
"...For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any person. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed..."
My response: What a shallow, obtuse, non-sequitur, and just plain wrong evaluation of what & who atheists are. We fight against abusive religions like yours because there's good reason to do so. And no, being an atheist does not automatically make one a moral relativist. I am not one, Mr. Oaks.
