Free speech, and therefore free thought, appears to be dead in Limerick, Ireland.
Creeping Sharia?
Sharia in fact.
In response to the following news article I posted an apt response. That response was then censored.
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/limerick-school-apologises-for-upset-over-charlie-hebdo-1-6564147
-------------------------------------
Dear Jonathan Higbee,
We have removed your post from community.limerickleader.ie for hate speech, which is a violation of the Terms of Service. Please note we will remove any profiles that continue to breach these terms which can be found at http://www.johnstonpress.co.uk/terms-access-website. Please note that even if your comment is in response to another violation of the guidelines, it will be removed if found to be abusive. Since the moderation system in place is abuse-based, we will not be made aware of comments that violate the Terms of Service unless they are reported for abuse.
Comment Removed:
In Response to Limerick school apologises for upset over Charlie Hebdo
"Creeping sharia, in the minds of the pseudo-liberals on the cultural left - turning them all into new-fascists.
Apology for the murder of artists, and for censorship of art artists were just barely murdered for.
Conflating religion with race, and race with being human. Doublespeak. Belief maintenance. Heresy trials.. Excommunication. All these things happen within the de facto fascist cult religion of the new left today.
Jim Jones.
David Koresh.
L. Ron Hubbard.
Joseph Smith.
Mohamed.
Charismatic charlatans all. Abusive cult leaders. But the WORST of these is Mohamed.
Additional related thoughts:
Leftist religion loves Islam and hates the West and the fruits of the Enlightenment
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/01/leftist-religion-loves-islam-and-hates.html"
Moderation Team
Johnston Press plc Registered in Scotland no. SC015382
Registered Office:Orchard Brae House, 30 Queensferry Road, Edinburgh EH4 2HS
Opinions expressed in this email are those of the writer and not the company.
E-mail traffic is monitored within Johnston Press and messages may be viewed.
This e-mail and any files with it are solely for the use of the addressee(s).
If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this e-mail in error.
Please delete it or return it to the sender or notify us by email at
postmaster@jpress.co.uk
----------- end of quote
Here's a response I just posted on their site, a response which may also be censored:
Creeping sharia? Sharia in fact.
Free speech, and therefore
free thought, and the ability to be an intellectually and emotionally
honest human being is dead in Limerick.
Thank goodness your
little speck on the Internet cannot control what happens nowadays. The
editors and operators of this site are partners in abuse. Child abuse.
Adult abuse. The abuse that comes directly from life within a cult.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Naked women protesting: The EXACT response needed, to Islam in general, Islamic State, and censors of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Naked women protesting: The EXACT response needed, to Islam in general, Islamic State, and censors of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Femen revolution...
Women protesting nude in Stockholm in front of the Egyptian embassy.
Femen revolution...
Women protesting nude in Stockholm in front of the Egyptian embassy.
Sharia is not a constitution...
Other good slogans including at the end of the vid: Arab women against Islamists.
When will they be showing this video on the PBS Newshour, or MSNBC, or the BBC, or the CBC? Macneil & Lehrer's eyes would be bugging out if they show this video. It's too much truth for your average mealy mouthed recalcitrant pseudo-liberal to handle.
More info:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130216040401/http://femen.org/news/id/185
http://www.everydayrebellion.net/nudity-against-mursis-constitution/
http://snaphanen.dk/2012/12/20/aliaa-magda-elmahdy-i-stockholm/
Little Johnny, and little Suzie, the world is not all fluffy and nice I'm sad to say. In countries called Iraq and Syria they burn people alive, cut their heads off, stone them to death, and throw people off towers. And in other "more nice" Islamic countries they jail women and lash them for driving or for walking around unveiled.
Nothing to do with Islam (ie: everything to do with Islam - the oppression).
A perfect response is nakedness. The power of the pen. The power of the breast. The power of the nipple. The power of the hoohaw.
When will they be showing this video on the PBS Newshour, or MSNBC, or the BBC, or the CBC? Macneil & Lehrer's eyes would be bugging out if they show this video. It's too much truth for your average mealy mouthed recalcitrant pseudo-liberal to handle.
More info:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130216040401/http://femen.org/news/id/185
http://www.everydayrebellion.net/nudity-against-mursis-constitution/
http://snaphanen.dk/2012/12/20/aliaa-magda-elmahdy-i-stockholm/
Little Johnny, and little Suzie, the world is not all fluffy and nice I'm sad to say. In countries called Iraq and Syria they burn people alive, cut their heads off, stone them to death, and throw people off towers. And in other "more nice" Islamic countries they jail women and lash them for driving or for walking around unveiled.
Nothing to do with Islam (ie: everything to do with Islam - the oppression).
A perfect response is nakedness. The power of the pen. The power of the breast. The power of the nipple. The power of the hoohaw.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Comments in response to the general Mormon stance on marriage
Comments in response to the general Mormon stance on marriage:
I loath Oaks and Kimball and Packer. However it's hard for an exmo to admit that the cultural left is in denial about human nature also. Advocacy for all things "childfree," and not having kids because people in foreign countries supposedly have too many. It's the same logic as eating one's peas because people on China may not eat theirs. The Mormon Church also abuses people by pushing them too far to the left in response.
One of my uncles from Manti had this happen to him - sucked into the equally abusive glory hole culture of San Fran. And one sister who's spent her life traveling and playing and not having kids because of environmental concerns and supposed overpopulation in general - a victim of the left also. Margaret Sanger's life work turning my sister into a near zero on the great mandala.
So it's tough to see value in the cultural middle or right for an exmormon, that's for damn sure. But Dennett's dangerous idea that religion is a natural phenomenon cuts both ways.
All these things are good:
Having kids.
Masturbation.
Oral sex.
Web 2.0 amateur porn.
Monogamy.
Nudism which does not lie about nudism among adults always having a sexual component.
Being true to our heritage as 13.8 billion year evolved sexual animals who can finally understand how we got here.
Drawing Mohamed and helping free people from cults like Islam and Mormonism.
Showing leftist and rightist Emperors all have no clothes.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Latest thoughts on the pressing issues of the day
I love inherently reproductive sex (AKA sex), children, life, the Universe, the fact that we're the first life here to have some understanding of how we got here, the Internet, amateur porn, oral sex, masturbation, Charlie Hebdo, and sticking it up the right royal ass of all censors and freedom hating cult members, and their dumbass leftist apologists, including cult members of Islam.
I dislike Mormon leaders Oaks, Spencer Kimball, Mark E. Peterson, and Boyd Packer.
I enjoy Duck Dynasty.
I like Oscar Wilde, Stephen Fry, and other service oriented and/or highly-artistically-usefully gays.
I don't like and am highly wary of wastrel angel reading bipolar gays who readily befriend convicted pedophiles after they're been released from prison.
I hate doctors who circumcise boys or girls, and Muslims and Jews who continue to genitally rape their own children . Also I hate idiot secular apologists for barbaric religious practices, and John Harvey Kellogg and his legacy in medical pseudoscience.
I like Thunderf00t. I hate Skepchick and all her Atheism-Plus related ultra-retarded cohorts.
I highly admire Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and I like Pat Condell.
I loath Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Scott Atran, and Reza Aslan.
I get nauseous about Unitarian Universalists who claim Mohamed was an advocate for social justice. At one highly illustrative congregation these same people also readily elected a freakish hideously-ugly man-woman-it to be their priest.
Many humanist and Unitarian groups are seas of gray hair. The hippie-worshipers of all things "childfree."
I dislike dogmatism on the left more than I dislike dogmatism on the right. Both are bad but leftist dogmatism is worse.
I was raised as a liberal. I voted for Obama twice. But I can now see more clearly key fundamental flaws in current liberalism. The near entirety of the current cultural left is failing everyone. They are clueless regarding Islam and abusive cultures. They want to be "childfree," and have inherently non-reproductive "sex" with everyone in every possible combination. They want to actively deny 13.8 billion years of evolutionary history by subverting and denying what sex is and how we all got here - deny and be traitors to their own personal history. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection and 1.2 billion years of sex - and then came the petty "childfree" vain narcissistic wastrels - traitors to the evolutionary and sexual history that brought us here.
It's quite true that there is only one type of "sex" in the human animal, the type which inherently leads to reproduction, and by extension only one type of real marriage.
But gays are gay I admit. Let's just hope more gay people learn to draw Mohamed.
Why are the champions of gay, "minority," "race," and women's "rights" sucked into Margaret Sanger's and Gloria Steinem's kool-aid, so clueless about Islam?
If the left is so fundamentally clueless about the root causes of the abuses in Islam are they also clueless about feminism, gay rights, race relations and rights, affirmative action, social justice, and socialism in general?
Is being an idiot about Islam an indication of more widespread memetic disease and intellectual malfunction?
I believe we can at this point question the validity of their *whole* project perhaps. The liberal permissive hippie project - apparently leads to kissing the ass of Mohamed.
Maybe the Libertarians really are more right. Yes Ayn Rand was a complete fool and idiot. But in general look across the cultural landscape to see exactly who (!) is on the side of Charlie Hebdo! It's not the UUs. It's not the secular left as shown on MSNBC, the BBC, the PBS Newshour, or the New York Times.
Look closely.
Who exactly champions the right to offend religious sensitivities of Muslins? Who loves Charlie Hebdo's very valuable art - who on the cultural landscape?
Not the secular left. Yes the secular right. And also the religious right have some useful agreement with the value of Hebdo's work regarding Islam.
The left, as perfectly exemplified by UU congregations, is obsessed about gay rights and the rights of women to have "sex" without reproduction. The rights of "minorities" to be worshiped and have their collective asses kissed. And they believe Mohamed was an advocate for social justice, even though the complete opposite is true.
The Hebdo murders was a 9/11 for art. A wake up call.
Much of the cultural left is engaged in slow motion suicide.
I'm moving toward being more of a single issue voter. I now care less about disparaging believers in the Bible. Islam is such a huge threat that it must be fought on all levels. Not everything is equal. Not all cultures are of equal value.
Even the much-worshiped "Native Americans" abuse their own kids when they are allowed by Canadian courts to deny life saving leukemia cancer treatment to their kids for religious reasons.
Political correctness trumps children's lives in ultra-PC Canada.
So again I'm moving right, happily toward Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell.
Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Honesty. Moving forward. Survival. Preserving the Reformation and Enlightenment. The current-left are traitors to all.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
DeWayne Wickham, Coward and Murder Apologist - Regarding Censorship of Charlie Hebdo
Greetings,
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the following employee of Morgan State University: DeWayne Wickham. The main focus of my complaint is one of journalistic malpractice, where this man who's the head of the journalism department in my view advocates for the murder of artists - such as the artists recently murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
A journalist should report the facts, not censor them. It's not your job to treat religion and cults with kid gloves, or to "protect" people from well-founded honest opinions about religions and cults.
Recently Mr. Wickham published the following article in USA Today:
Wickham: 'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/19/charlie-hebdo-cross-line-free-speech-covers-islam-limits-wickham/21960957/
Here's my reply to that article:
De facto apology for, and support for, murderers and their actions. In the wake of the murder of 12 people this is the best you can do?
Papers which refused to show the art of artists just barely murdered for their art need to find useful apologists for their despicable and cowardly actions. USA Today has such a man on staff apparently.
Want to know about Islam? Ask an ex-Muslim. You'll get more honest answers about the totality of the situation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and so on. Also you'll get more honest answers from people who left other cults such as Mormonism. Ex-Mormons usually more easily sympathize & empathize with the plight of people in other cults. The two main differences between Islam & Mormonism are time-since-founding and that the core edicts of Islam are more dangerous & destructive & abusive than Mormonism.
Apology for murder. Apology for censorship. Apology for having a new de facto sharia, a new "Islamic-State-Light" in America and Europe. That's what people like DeWayne Wickham are apparently advocating for.
As for me I'll stand with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Caroline Fourest.
Here's a related article by Ms. Fourest:
Violence Against Charlie Hebdo: The Globalization of Moral and Intellectual Confusion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fourest/violence-against-charlie-_b_6509802.html
Cowardly "journalists" who aren't really journalists quickly apologize for murder and their own pusillanimous actions, search, find, and scratch for every possible reason for their cowardly actions. It's lame - but you're part of the "old media." Old-media is who's doing the censoring of art artists were just barely murdered for. Thank goodness for the Internet, where we need not ask amoral cowards to be our filters.
The "left" really does *nothing* to help Muslims leave the abusive cult they're in. So-called "journalists" stand by and watch murder happen, and then quickly go on and apologize for (and de facto support) the actions of the murderers. It's your job to report on the facts - that's it - not to be cowardly rear-end-covering filters in the wake or terrible murder and murder-enabled artistic censorship.
Additional related articles:
We Are Charlie: Free Speech v. Self-Censorship
by Douglas Murray
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5016/charlie-hebdo-attack
Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/
Salman Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo: freedom of speech can only be absolute
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/15/salman-rushdie-on-charlie-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute
Charlie Hebdo Editor To Chuck Todd: When You Blur Our Cover, 'You Blur Out Democracy' - Hebdo Editor Scolds Outlets For Not Showing Cover: ‘You Blur Out Democracy’ With Censorship
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/18/hebdo-editor-scolds-outlets-for-not-showing-cover-you-blur-out-democracy-with-censorship-video/
Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/men-without-chests-how-c-s-lewis-predicted-charlie-hebdo-censorship/
Sam Harris' new entry on the murder of Hebdo artists, and the subsequent censorship.
After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the following employee of Morgan State University: DeWayne Wickham. The main focus of my complaint is one of journalistic malpractice, where this man who's the head of the journalism department in my view advocates for the murder of artists - such as the artists recently murdered at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
A journalist should report the facts, not censor them. It's not your job to treat religion and cults with kid gloves, or to "protect" people from well-founded honest opinions about religions and cults.
Recently Mr. Wickham published the following article in USA Today:
Wickham: 'Charlie Hebdo' crosses the line
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/19/charlie-hebdo-cross-line-free-speech-covers-islam-limits-wickham/21960957/
Here's my reply to that article:
De facto apology for, and support for, murderers and their actions. In the wake of the murder of 12 people this is the best you can do?
Papers which refused to show the art of artists just barely murdered for their art need to find useful apologists for their despicable and cowardly actions. USA Today has such a man on staff apparently.
Want to know about Islam? Ask an ex-Muslim. You'll get more honest answers about the totality of the situation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and so on. Also you'll get more honest answers from people who left other cults such as Mormonism. Ex-Mormons usually more easily sympathize & empathize with the plight of people in other cults. The two main differences between Islam & Mormonism are time-since-founding and that the core edicts of Islam are more dangerous & destructive & abusive than Mormonism.
Apology for murder. Apology for censorship. Apology for having a new de facto sharia, a new "Islamic-State-Light" in America and Europe. That's what people like DeWayne Wickham are apparently advocating for.
As for me I'll stand with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Caroline Fourest.
Here's a related article by Ms. Fourest:
Violence Against Charlie Hebdo: The Globalization of Moral and Intellectual Confusion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-fourest/violence-against-charlie-_b_6509802.html
Cowardly "journalists" who aren't really journalists quickly apologize for murder and their own pusillanimous actions, search, find, and scratch for every possible reason for their cowardly actions. It's lame - but you're part of the "old media." Old-media is who's doing the censoring of art artists were just barely murdered for. Thank goodness for the Internet, where we need not ask amoral cowards to be our filters.
The "left" really does *nothing* to help Muslims leave the abusive cult they're in. So-called "journalists" stand by and watch murder happen, and then quickly go on and apologize for (and de facto support) the actions of the murderers. It's your job to report on the facts - that's it - not to be cowardly rear-end-covering filters in the wake or terrible murder and murder-enabled artistic censorship.
Additional related articles:
We Are Charlie: Free Speech v. Self-Censorship
by Douglas Murray
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5016/charlie-hebdo-attack
Charlie Hebdo stood alone. What does that say about our ‘free’ press?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-stood-alone-what-does-that-say-about-our-free-press/
Salman Rushdie on Charlie Hebdo: freedom of speech can only be absolute
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/15/salman-rushdie-on-charlie-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute
Charlie Hebdo Editor To Chuck Todd: When You Blur Our Cover, 'You Blur Out Democracy' - Hebdo Editor Scolds Outlets For Not Showing Cover: ‘You Blur Out Democracy’ With Censorship
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/18/hebdo-editor-scolds-outlets-for-not-showing-cover-you-blur-out-democracy-with-censorship-video/
Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/08/men-without-chests-how-c-s-lewis-predicted-charlie-hebdo-censorship/
Sam Harris' new entry on the murder of Hebdo artists, and the subsequent censorship.
After Charlie Hebdo and Other Thoughts
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/after-charlie-hebdo-and-other-thoughts
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Leftist religion loves Islam and hates the West and the fruits of the Enlightenment
"I am an Islamophillic leftie and you cannot change my mind. You can show how the Quran and Mohamed are reprehensible and evil, you won't change my moral and cultural relativist mind. You can advocate that we really stand up for the value of comedy, satire, and art which help free people from mental and physical slavery, and you still won't change my Islamophillic tendencies. I love Islam and hate Ametica, the West, and the Enlightenment, and I'm a traitor to all three. Mohamed was an advocate for social justice and women's rights. And all things are relative. Plus I belong to a de facto death cult that advocates for very low rates of reproduction, so in the end the brain washed people will of course win!"
...says your average watcher of Democracy Now(?), and appreciators of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, and Reza Aslan. Also your average BBC, New York Times, MSNBC, CNC, Sky News, Toronto Star, CBC, and PBS Newshour editor. And your average UU member or leader.
So the left has their denialist de facto religion with dogma, heresy trials, and excommunication also.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
PBS Newshour censorship of Charlie Hebdo art people died for!
PBS Newshour refused to show the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo. Here's the complaint I just filed with them:
Regarding your refusing to show the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo: The PBS Newshour is complicit with murder, and is acting as apologists for murder.
12 people just died for god's sake!
Excellent clarity from Douglas Murray:
https://youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive
Related complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/01/complaint-sent-to-bbc-regarding.html
The above referenced complaint also relates directly to the PBS Newshour.
"Old media," such as the Newshour can go the way of the Dodo (no offense to Dodos). Your main audience appears to be Luddites with no access to the Internet.
Latest issue of Hebdo available online
http://issuu.com/charliehebdo/docs/charlie_hebdo_14.01.2015_no1178
Very good lines on paper. Blood paid for this issue.
The future belongs to those who slander, and draw outrageously funny cartoons about, the prophet of Islam.
Children in Islam reportedly love Mohamed more than their parents - the sign of a cult.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30790412
"...for a Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad is more important than their own parents..."
-----------
From Indian TV:
Paris attack: Taslima Nasreen says freedom of expression is absolute
Speaking on the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists, Bangladeshi author said that the freedom of expression is absolute and that the state failed to act against radicals.
Video at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/paris-attack-taslima-nasreen-says-freedom-of-expression-is-absolute/1/412838.html
Islamofactia.
Islamotruthia.
Quite true that the left is out to lunch on this issue.
More info recently found:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive/videos
According to Mr. Murray behind closed doors European leaders know the truth. But they dare not speak it in public.
We don't need you to censor truth and facts on our behalf. We don't need you to be our filters of reality, and to hide us from the truth 12 people just died for.
Regarding your refusing to show the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo: The PBS Newshour is complicit with murder, and is acting as apologists for murder.
12 people just died for god's sake!
Excellent clarity from Douglas Murray:
https://youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive
Related complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/01/complaint-sent-to-bbc-regarding.html
The above referenced complaint also relates directly to the PBS Newshour.
"Old media," such as the Newshour can go the way of the Dodo (no offense to Dodos). Your main audience appears to be Luddites with no access to the Internet.
Latest issue of Hebdo available online
http://issuu.com/charliehebdo/docs/charlie_hebdo_14.01.2015_no1178
Very good lines on paper. Blood paid for this issue.
The future belongs to those who slander, and draw outrageously funny cartoons about, the prophet of Islam.
Children in Islam reportedly love Mohamed more than their parents - the sign of a cult.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30790412
"...for a Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad is more important than their own parents..."
-----------
From Indian TV:
Paris attack: Taslima Nasreen says freedom of expression is absolute
Speaking on the killing of Charlie Hebdo journalists, Bangladeshi author said that the freedom of expression is absolute and that the state failed to act against radicals.
Video at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/paris-attack-taslima-nasreen-says-freedom-of-expression-is-absolute/1/412838.html
Islamofactia.
Islamotruthia.
Quite true that the left is out to lunch on this issue.
More info recently found:
https://www.youtube.com/user/DouglasMurrayArchive/videos
According to Mr. Murray behind closed doors European leaders know the truth. But they dare not speak it in public.
We don't need you to censor truth and facts on our behalf. We don't need you to be our filters of reality, and to hide us from the truth 12 people just died for.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Complaint sent to the BBC regarding censorship of Charlie Hebdo
Hello,
I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.
It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.
This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.
You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.
You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.
We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.
So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.
Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.
We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.
Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.
p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?
Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.
Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.
What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families.
In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.
That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.
Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.
I am writing to make a complaint regarding the BBC News division, and the matter of your choosing to now show copies of Charlie Hebdo.
It's almost as if you view these papers as a type of pornography. You also don't show graphic images of sexual activity. And also you refuse to show caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohamed, even after several deaths of associated publishers & so on.
This is outrageous and highly immoral, these actions of yours.
You're not reporting the news. Your censoring it. Managing it.
You're acting in this matter very much like "old media." New media remains relevant because it's uncensored and often unfiltered.
We don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from sexuality. And we don't need the BBC to filter our eyes from caricatures of Mohamed.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. I am an ex-Mormon and so I know what it's like to believe in a charismatic charlatan prophet. Joseph Smith had a 14 year old wife & he was married to women who were still legally married to other men. Mohamed had a 6 year old wife, and he was a warmonger & murderer.
So the bottom line is that you're not reporting the news accurately. Instead you're acting as a lame old-media-style filter. And you're acting as an enabler for murder.
Your actions in this matter essentially are complicit with, and an act of apologetics for, murders. And for what? For lampooning the prophet of a religion. An abusive religion. A religion which never had a Reformation, or maybe it's having one now with our help. But it will only have one effectively if we are willing to be honest, and to treat Islam with the same level of criticism we use for other religions.
We don't need your help to keep us from cartoons, especially when the cartoonists involved were murdered for what they drew.
Publish images of the latest issue of Hebdo.
p.s. Hebdo applied a near equal level of scrutiny toward all religions. That's the way it should be. Why should everyone be required to treat Islam with kid gloves? Because it's people are supposedly oppressed, or because it's a "race," or because angry Muslims will try & kill us for being critical of Islam? Which is it?
Muslims are oppressed by their own religion, and by the fact that Islam *never* had a proper Reformation like Christianity did. Maybe Islam is having it's Reformation now (where afterword it can have it's big boy pants on and be able to deal with cartoons like adults instead of like spoiled little brat kids) - but it will only have an effective reformation if we're willing to be honest about Islam.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
Everyone should be perfectly willing to be critical if all other religions.
Leftists often don't know what it's like to live in real religions, such as Mormonism, Islam, Scientology, the Jim Jones or David Koresh cults, and so on. All they know is about the light & fluffy stuff they hear in Anglican or Unitarian Universalist meetings. But those are no longer *real* religions, where people really *are* brain washed.
What's one key sign of a cult? When children view the cult leaders as being more important than their families.
In Islam children are taught to value Mohamed more than their parents.
That's abusive, and a key sign of a cult.
Can we handle honesty? Apparently some of us cannot. But news orgs should not keep of from cartoons of all things! Especially when the associated artists were murdered for their work.
Friday, December 19, 2014
The Atheist Movement: Pour in more laxative
A quote from Faisal Saeed Al Mutar (December 18, 2014):
My response:
I am going to confess about something that has been bugging me for the past 6 months that I want to get out of my chest and I know that some people will disagree me about it.
Since June this year, I have "partly" quit the Atheist community in America and put full focus on human rights in dictatorships which has always been my interest since I read Christopher Hitchens's first book, when I went to the first Atheist conference last year in Austin, I was filled with excitement and joy, after finishing my last conference for this year in North Carolina, I was filled with fear.---quote ends
This fear comes from an Iraqi who lived a civil war, there is so much inner fighting that happens in the Atheist movement that put me so many times in between choosing between two people that I both consider friends.
It's like being the child of a divorced parents who hate each other.
I am a foreigner to this country and I noticed this behavior to be extremely weird and destructive.
It's always to good to disagree and have a civil discussion about it but the movement doesn't seem to fulfill what it claims to aspire to.
I have formed a wonderful family in that movement and I am very happy about it.
I sincerely hope that things will be alright whether I will be dead or alive in future to witness it.
Best Regards
Faisal Saeed Al Mutar.
A freaking refugee from a war torn country.
www.faisalalmutar.com
My response:
One
could well ask what type of movement the atheist movement is. Clearly
one which requires a lot more laxative, to clear out those who very much
prefer to have atheist groups be de facto religions.
I
agree that examining the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens,
and frankly the life work of the Monty Python group (seriously!) is
key. Also make note of Steven Pinker, Dennett, Harris, and others who've
chosen to push against both sides of the political & social
spectrum - to push against dogmas which simply do not accurately
describe human nature or facts on the ground about many matters.
Atheism Plus? Pour in the Ex-Lax.
Unitarian
Universalism's fawning appreciation of Islam & Mohamed, with the
help of religious curricula drafted directly from Reza Aslan works? Pour
in the Metamucil.
A
rejection 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection, basic
good family values, basic biology, and evolutionary history - from the
left? Add the Miralax. The left can deny human nature too (ref. Pinker
as a start).
It's
hard to have atheist groups which aren't echo chambers, and little
petty cliquish mirrors of the pompous frantic idiocy of
know-it-all-but-know-nothing college students.
Dennett's
dangerous idea is that religion is a natural phenomenon. It's so damn
natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of a social or
political ideology cannot help but form a de facto one, with heresy
trials & excommunication all waiting in the wings as ready tools of
belief maintenance and thought control.
There
is a sickness present in American universities. The sickness of
dogmatic political correctness. Dogma does not help humanity move
forward toward the truth. What you're seeing in atheist groups is a
symptom of this sickness.
A crucible of ideas cannot work in an atmosphere of stifling thought control.
Related thoughts:
The Atheist Movement needs more laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html
A crucible of ideas cannot work in an atmosphere of stifling thought control.
Related thoughts:
The Atheist Movement needs more laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Darren Wilson interview - November 25, 2014
Darren Wilson interview...
Brown just before he met up with Wilson:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE
A piss poor vehicle for the black community, and media whores like Al Sharpton, to glom onto.
Think about your average bully. Huge bully. Pushing people around. He even thinks he can push cops around, apparently.
Steals a $48 box of cigars, using his huge mass. Then interacts with Mr. Wilson the way he does. Ok, he didn't deserve to die, yes that's true, but he sure a F acted damn stupid!
Do massive bullies who fight with cops, punch them, and grab for their guns "deserve" to be shot? No. But they may well be anyway.
Very poor vehicle for "change." Change in the opposite direction...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkOfqIXkBRE
A piss poor vehicle for the black community, and media whores like Al Sharpton, to glom onto.
Think about your average bully. Huge bully. Pushing people around. He even thinks he can push cops around, apparently.
Steals a $48 box of cigars, using his huge mass. Then interacts with Mr. Wilson the way he does. Ok, he didn't deserve to die, yes that's true, but he sure a F acted damn stupid!
Do massive bullies who fight with cops, punch them, and grab for their guns "deserve" to be shot? No. But they may well be anyway.
Very poor vehicle for "change." Change in the opposite direction...
Thugs Across America: on Ferguson (AKA Thugville) being destroyed
Thugs
across America (to the tune of Hands Across America). Thugs across this
land I love. Thugs everywhere, especially in and near Ferguson, Thugs
across America...
Commentary on recent events:
Don't dress like a gansta and get all in the face of the self appointed Latino private community security.
Don't remove the orange end from a fake gun and then wave the now even more real looking fake gun around in a park.
Don't
use your many layers of fat and muscle to steal some cigs and then use
the same mass and strength to try and strong arm a gun away from a cop.
Walgreens, many other shops burning now in Thugville.
Thugs Across America
------------
Additional views on the mayhem:
The right wing view of what's happening in Ferguson:
My
view: I agree with Bill Maher that Mr. Brown Jr. was a thug. A
strong-arm robber (as per convenience store video) who was well on his
way to trouble with the police. The officer involved probably reasonably
felt threatened, after tussling with Mr. Brown Jr. in his car.
Maher:
The
incident with Mr. Brown Jr. is a piss poor vehicle for the black
community to latch onto for "justice" or much of anything else.
The
strong arm robbery (meaning a robbery done using just mass &
strength, being a HUGE guy who pushes people around such as the store
clerk shown in the video) that happened just before Mr. Brown's
interaction with the officer involved:
A
piss poor vehicle for justice or anything. Yes it was sad that the huge
thieving bully thug involved got killed, but he was a huge thieving
bully thug who struggled with a police officer & so on.
------------
And a more general root cause:
"Education
is just so 'white!' You know, speaking proper English. Getting good grades. To do all dat just mean you actin' like whitey too much."
Oh,
and on a related note, apparently medical science is just way too
"white" for another group upset about what other humans did in the past.
Amerindian culture sacrifices an 11 year old child on the altar of revenge and hatred
Thugs Across America.
There's a problem with liberal self hate run amok.
----------------
p.s. Check out the newly released interview of Darren Wilson:
Darren Wilson interview - November 25, 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/darren-wilson-interview-november-25-2014.html
----------------
p.s. Check out the newly released interview of Darren Wilson:
Darren Wilson interview - November 25, 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/darren-wilson-interview-november-25-2014.html
Monday, November 24, 2014
Buddhist ideas polluting science & reason: free will, the self, and consciousness
Found this.
Sam Harris’ Buddhist Bullshit
http://chrisdierkes.com/sam-harris-buddhist-bullshit/
I agree that Harris's general views on the brain, free will, and the self may well all be warped by and clouded by his exposure to Buddhism.
Listen to the *whole tone* of Harris's work on free self, consciousness, and the self, and one general path emerges: toward Buddhism masturbatory obsession with getting *all things* out of your head, to find some sort of "peace."
But Harris's views on free will & the self are in my view myopic & simplistic.
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/free-will-and-self-are-not-illusions.html
And found this today:
"...Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate..."
"...Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures..."
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html
Ha ha!!! So this is Harris's problem! Even someone like Harris can have his views warped by a religion - one he likes very much, apparently.
I like a lot of what Harris has done in debates, but talk of free will & the self being illusions, well, smells a bit too much of Buddhism, AKA a religion.
Additional thoughts on Buddhism:
the violence of Buddhism - relativism, cult of personality, ignorance, & pacifism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-violence-of-buddhism-relativism.html
Sam Harris’ Buddhist Bullshit
http://chrisdierkes.com/sam-harris-buddhist-bullshit/
I agree that Harris's general views on the brain, free will, and the self may well all be warped by and clouded by his exposure to Buddhism.
Listen to the *whole tone* of Harris's work on free self, consciousness, and the self, and one general path emerges: toward Buddhism masturbatory obsession with getting *all things* out of your head, to find some sort of "peace."
But Harris's views on free will & the self are in my view myopic & simplistic.
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/free-will-and-self-are-not-illusions.html
And found this today:
"...Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate..."
"...Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures..."
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html
Ha ha!!! So this is Harris's problem! Even someone like Harris can have his views warped by a religion - one he likes very much, apparently.
I like a lot of what Harris has done in debates, but talk of free will & the self being illusions, well, smells a bit too much of Buddhism, AKA a religion.
Additional thoughts on Buddhism:
the violence of Buddhism - relativism, cult of personality, ignorance, & pacifism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-violence-of-buddhism-relativism.html
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - another de facto atheist religion & leftist echo chamber
Atheism Is A Religion series...
Got booted today from the facebook group "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic," in response to the following post:
Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/amerindian-culture-condemns-11-year-old.html
Two admins on the group, one named Mark Wittgruber (the apparent group founder), and a Sean Michael Carter took particular special exception to my presence on the group, when I had the audacity to do the following:
As an atheist, challenge the general leftist stance of atheists.
The two men were essentially a tag team engaging in an admin enabled pile on.
Threatening to kick if one refuses to kow tow to the cherished views of the leaders.
Not really engaging in a debate or discussion.
Instead engaging in abusive attacks - when they find your views particularly inconvenient.
Hey, when admins do it, it's ok right?
Not really an atmosphere for an honest & open discussion, to say the least!
This is not new.
Actually this type of activity by admins on facebook is very common.
But it's also a sad commentary on human nature.
Religion is so damn natural (ref Daniel Dennett) that even atheists cannot help (!) but form one when they gather together in groups. Very hard for them to avoid!
The apparent founder of the group appears to be an atheist. But he has no problem with engaging in personal attacks when it suits his apparent needs to have a playground centered around HIS questions, and HIS thoughts, ensuring that HIS beliefs are not questioned or challenged, and that's it.
Here's some of the supposed rules of the group in question:
And so, onward.
Atheists in general don't value free speech any more than anyone else.
And in fact, if they're on the cultural left they usually value it LESS than the cultural right does. A lot less.
Liberals often cannot wrap their heads around problems with their own culture.
I'm generally speaking an economic liberal and a social moderate. A 9/11 liberal. A Christopher Hitchens liberal.
But I have no use for fools, even liberal ones, who can't handle deeper discussions about ALL issues, without restriction (other than, perhaps, a banning of commercialized spam).
Things are related. There's synergies between views. Not everything is one way or the other. Politics and religion are joined, even for the liberal.
When the Unitarian Universalist uses his religion to back his actions, he doesn't see a problem with that. But he gets very upset with a right wing person refers to his religion as something of value.
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - not a debate group nor a regular discussion group. A group where the admins have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means. Actively telling participants what they are allowed to say in their replies. Using threats against those who refuse to comply (threats to ban & kick). Using petty expletives to refer to posts they don't agree with. And so on.
It's par for the course, a course I've seen several times on Facebook.
Atheists don't like their beliefs challenged, by fellow atheists. They get just as upset as any right wing religious person - and they will happily engage in heresy trials & excommunication against those who challenge their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Got booted today from the facebook group "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic," in response to the following post:
Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/amerindian-culture-condemns-11-year-old.html
Two admins on the group, one named Mark Wittgruber (the apparent group founder), and a Sean Michael Carter took particular special exception to my presence on the group, when I had the audacity to do the following:
As an atheist, challenge the general leftist stance of atheists.
The two men were essentially a tag team engaging in an admin enabled pile on.
Threatening to kick if one refuses to kow tow to the cherished views of the leaders.
Not really engaging in a debate or discussion.
Instead engaging in abusive attacks - when they find your views particularly inconvenient.
Hey, when admins do it, it's ok right?
Not really an atmosphere for an honest & open discussion, to say the least!
This is not new.
Actually this type of activity by admins on facebook is very common.
But it's also a sad commentary on human nature.
Religion is so damn natural (ref Daniel Dennett) that even atheists cannot help (!) but form one when they gather together in groups. Very hard for them to avoid!
The apparent founder of the group appears to be an atheist. But he has no problem with engaging in personal attacks when it suits his apparent needs to have a playground centered around HIS questions, and HIS thoughts, ensuring that HIS beliefs are not questioned or challenged, and that's it.
Here's some of the supposed rules of the group in question:
1. No preaching.The admins of the group are free to break rules two and five.
2. No personal attacks.
3. No politics.
4. Do not ban the admins
5. Enjoy the discussion!
And so, onward.
Atheists in general don't value free speech any more than anyone else.
And in fact, if they're on the cultural left they usually value it LESS than the cultural right does. A lot less.
Liberals often cannot wrap their heads around problems with their own culture.
I'm generally speaking an economic liberal and a social moderate. A 9/11 liberal. A Christopher Hitchens liberal.
But I have no use for fools, even liberal ones, who can't handle deeper discussions about ALL issues, without restriction (other than, perhaps, a banning of commercialized spam).
Things are related. There's synergies between views. Not everything is one way or the other. Politics and religion are joined, even for the liberal.
When the Unitarian Universalist uses his religion to back his actions, he doesn't see a problem with that. But he gets very upset with a right wing person refers to his religion as something of value.
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - not a debate group nor a regular discussion group. A group where the admins have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means. Actively telling participants what they are allowed to say in their replies. Using threats against those who refuse to comply (threats to ban & kick). Using petty expletives to refer to posts they don't agree with. And so on.
It's par for the course, a course I've seen several times on Facebook.
Atheists don't like their beliefs challenged, by fellow atheists. They get just as upset as any right wing religious person - and they will happily engage in heresy trials & excommunication against those who challenge their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014
Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?
Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/
The savages are not so noble after all.
More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.
My own further views on so-called "natives:"
American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html
Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html
Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.
Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/
The savages are not so noble after all.
More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126
In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.
My own further views on so-called "natives:"
American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html
Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html
Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!
Criticisms of Sam Harris & other's view that free will, and even "the self," are illusions:
From Daniel Dennett - on free will:
Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Afternoon, 1st Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ob4c_iLuTw
From Mary Midgley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV48fvJsIrs#t=759
Free Will is NOT An Illusion
by W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD | October 25, 2010
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.
Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.
So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Review by Mary Midgley of Dennett's Freedom Evolves:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1
And Dennett's book itself mentions problems with Libet's work.
More generally:
The Self Is Not an Illusion
by Will Wilkinson
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/the-self-is-not-an-illusion
Free Will Is not an Illusion
by William Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion
and also at
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
More criticisms of the Libet experiment:
"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.
From Dennett:
"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."
from Dennett's lecture "My Brain Made Me Do It."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZuQzZDdVczUENfd1k/view?usp=sharing
But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:
There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.
When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.
Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.
Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.
Colors are real.
Perceptions are real.
Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.
Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.
What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?
Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.
"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.
Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.
Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.
A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."
Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.
We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.
We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.
When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.
Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.
I am a robot.
We are the robots.
...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?
I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.
Also a lot of this back & forth feels very much like a fallacy of only two choices.
Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.
Sorry. Lame conclusions.
We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.
Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.
But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).
We have more free will than a carrot.
We have more sense of self than a carrot.
Harris should make note of the first fact.
Dennett should make note of the second.
Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.
Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.
"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."
from Steven Rose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371044/
How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!
From Daniel Dennett - on free will:
Moving Naturalism Forward: Day 2, Afternoon, 1st Session
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ob4c_iLuTw
From Mary Midgley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV48fvJsIrs#t=759
Free Will is NOT An Illusion
by W. R. Klemm, DVM, PhD | October 25, 2010
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
I'm a fan of Harris, but I rather think that the sense of self is no more of an illusion than color is an illusion.
Do colors exist? Yes. It's true that our range of detection depends fully on our evolutionary history. But we do detect them accurately, within the scope of our built in detection equipment.
So to say that free will & "the self" are illusions is not really accurate. It's deceptive
When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.
Review by Mary Midgley of Dennett's Freedom Evolves:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/mar/01/highereducation.news1
And Dennett's book itself mentions problems with Libet's work.
More generally:
The Self Is Not an Illusion
by Will Wilkinson
May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/the-self-is-not-an-illusion
Free Will Is not an Illusion
by William Klemm, D.V.M., Ph.D.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/memory-medic/201010/free-will-is-not-illusion
and also at
http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/25/free-will-is-not-an-illusion/
More criticisms of the Libet experiment:
"...A more direct test of the relationship between the readiness potential and the "awareness of the intention to move" was conducted by Banks and Isham (2009). In their study, participants performed a variant of the Libet's paradigm in which a delayed tone followed the button press. Subsequently, research participants reported the time of their intention to act (e.g., Libet's "W"). If W were time-locked to the readiness potential, W would remain uninfluenced by any post-action information. However, findings from this study show that W in fact shifts systematically with the time of the tone presentation, implicating that W is, at least in part, retrospectively reconstructed rather than pre-determined by the readiness potential..."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Sam Harris has apparently been *completely* persuaded by the Libet experiment.
From Dennett:
"...Here, then, are my conclusions: determinism is a red herring, neuroscience has ominous implications only for closet Cartesians, Mr. Puppet is a defective intuition pump, and there is a consequentialist, compatibilist justification of the just deserts clause. Thank you for your attention..."
from Dennett's lecture "My Brain Made Me Do It."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZuQzZDdVczUENfd1k/view?usp=sharing
But one can reasonably criticize Dennett's view of theaters as well:
There may not be a Cartesian theater, but that doesn't mean there isn't a theater at all.
When the software is "up," it's running, we're conscious. That's it.
Doesn't mean the "self" is an illusion.
Doesn't mean that free will is an illusion.
Colors are real.
Perceptions are real.
Just because there's interpretation going on doesn't mean that nothing is going on, or that everything is just so spooky that we are just slaves to chance or whatever the hell the root causes are of thoughts.
Sam Harris has sadly been derailed by a faulty interpretation of Libet's work.
What do I think is the REAL problem with all this?
Buddhism. Harris's exposure to Buddhism has in my view slanted his. Another religion screwing up people's views.
"Meditate until you feel the center dropping away."
...my interpretation of what Harris is advocating for.
Oooh! Spooky! A ham fisted poorly designed poorly interpreted experiment by Libet is glommed onto by Harris & others.
Sad. So sad. Inappropriately applied reductionism and dogmatically restrictive eliminativism.
A new "god of the gaps," where god = "the illusion of free will and of 'the self'."
Still religion and denialism, just under a new name.
We don't deny there's software or wetware in operation. The fact that timing exists doesn't in any way whatsoever mean that the software doesn't exist in the first place, or that it's not running in the first place.
We have more free will than a carrot, or in other words more ability to choose & decide & calculate.
When a highly complex robot says that he or she has a sense of "self," why not take them at their word? That "self" may be the fact that their software or wetware is "up" - and that's fine. It may not mean they have a soul in the traditional sense. But so what! The "self" is an expression of a currently-operational highly complex self-aware biological system. And secular apology for spooky Buddhism doesn't detract from that fact.
Little robots can derail the thinking of intelligent robots.
I am a robot.
We are the robots.
...therefore "we're an illusion?" "Free will is an illusion?" Our "sense of self" is an illusion?
I don't think so. We're alive, or we're not. The software or wetware is up, or it's not. The loop is running, or it's not.
Also a lot of this back & forth feels very much like a fallacy of only two choices.
Harris's view seems to de facto advocate for throwing up our hands and giving up. "Thoughts just arise," as he might say. Spooky. Ok, let's throw up our hands and say our new god of the gaps did it. Timing exists in thought processes, as Libet may have found. Oooh. Spooky. Therefore we don't have free will.
Sorry. Lame conclusions.
We are just beginning to learn. But these people who quickly jump to these conclusions about free will (Harris) or even a sense of self (Dennett), are in my view jumping too quickly to their conclusions, or are being too simplistic with them.
Doesn't mean the universe is spooky like Deepak Chopra advocates for with his woo. Doesn't mean there's a god. Doesn't mean that consciousness is "beyond" the realm of understanding.
But the robotic roots of biology have unfortunately derailed some otherwise pretty smart thinkers (Harris, Dennett, and others).
We have more free will than a carrot.
We have more sense of self than a carrot.
Harris should make note of the first fact.
Dennett should make note of the second.
Both free will and the sense of self come as a direct result of evolution by natural selection. The ability to choose (to varying degrees), and the perception that we have a sense of self, all come from evolution and the fact that we've evolved to become more complex biological creatures. Creatures made of tiny robots. But the fact that these two things are processes at all (eg: software or wetware "running") seems to trip up both Harris & Dennett, depending on what you are asking them about (free will, or a sense of self). Dennett seems a bit less susceptible to being tripped up perhaps. But I have the impression that a complete dismissal of the Cartesian theater goes too far.
Maybe the impression of the theater is simply how the wetware works & functions. Does that mean the theater doesn't exist? It exists no less than any other piece of software exists. And even claiming that may be too simplistic.
"...By separating the 'we' who can rebel against our genes and our brain, this avowed materialist becomes a Cartesian dualist in the laudable interest of preserving human agency... I find this abdication unsatisfactory, and instead want to insist that our sense of freedom to act, of possessing agency, emerges inevitably from our biological nature..."
from Steven Rose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371044/
How about instead of Cartesian dualism we have Cartesian singularism - or perhaps the "sense of dualism" is simply how the system works. Doesn't mean it's an "illusion" though!
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
The clitoris is more huge -accurately renaming the g-spot
Terms like "G-spot" & "vaginal orgasm" are apparently misnomers or a identification of what are actually other structures, such as the internal bulbs of the clitoris itself and so on.
Journal article:
Summary: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-112610.html
Full version:
http://media.wiley.com/PressRelease/112610/CA_Anatomy_of_Sex.pdf
news citations:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Vaginal-orgasm-doesnt-exist-at-all-Study/articleshow/44701884.cms
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/08/the-truth-about-female-orgasms-look-to-the-clitoris-not-the-vagina.html
My response: Maybe the terms are inaccurate (eg: g-spot vs urethral sponge). And I bet one still can get some additional response from finding what some call the g-spot. Saying "it doesn't exist" is just plain wrong. Maybe the anatomical labeling is incorrect, or the embryological roots have been misidentified - but that doesn't mean the structure doesn't exist.
Journal article:
Summary: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-112610.html
Full version:
http://media.wiley.com/PressRelease/112610/CA_Anatomy_of_Sex.pdf
news citations:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Vaginal-orgasm-doesnt-exist-at-all-Study/articleshow/44701884.cms
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/08/the-truth-about-female-orgasms-look-to-the-clitoris-not-the-vagina.html
My response: Maybe the terms are inaccurate (eg: g-spot vs urethral sponge). And I bet one still can get some additional response from finding what some call the g-spot. Saying "it doesn't exist" is just plain wrong. Maybe the anatomical labeling is incorrect, or the embryological roots have been misidentified - but that doesn't mean the structure doesn't exist.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
John Harvey Kellogg: what an f-er. Masturbation prevention is evil.
John Harvey Kellogg in his own words:
"Kellogg thought that masturbation was the worst evil one could commit; he often referred to it as 'self-abuse.' He was a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, and promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. In addition, Kellogg thought that diet played a huge role in masturbation and that a bland diet would decrease excitability and prevent masturbation. Thus, Kellogg invented Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in 1878. He hoped that feeding children this plain cereal every morning would help to combat the urges of 'self-abuse.'"
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention
Makes you want to never touch corn flakes ever again, or ANY cereal made by the company that still bears this f-er's name.
Also:
“ A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. ”
further
“ a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice ”
and
“ In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
"Kellogg thought that masturbation was the worst evil one could commit; he often referred to it as 'self-abuse.' He was a leader of the anti-masturbation movement, and promoted extreme measures to prevent masturbation. In addition, Kellogg thought that diet played a huge role in masturbation and that a bland diet would decrease excitability and prevent masturbation. Thus, Kellogg invented Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in 1878. He hoped that feeding children this plain cereal every morning would help to combat the urges of 'self-abuse.'"
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Masturbation_prevention
Makes you want to never touch corn flakes ever again, or ANY cereal made by the company that still bears this f-er's name.
Atheists of Utah is a religion
Found Sam Harris's comments about his recent interview on the Young Turks:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
After reading his further complaints about Glenn Greenwald and similar leftist a-holes I have the following response:
Truth be told I still have nothing but disdain for the Duck Dynasty hating politically correct ignoramuses who head up Atheists is Utah and related groups. These people will never reach the rural middle and right in America, with their reflexive self righteous petty piling on and pouncing.
As I read what Harris wrote I can see exactly where he's coming from.
Perhaps I'm moderately "ok" with gay marriage now, such as it is. But I think atheism should and must be a big enough tent to allow for all views to be expressed, how ever politically incorrect, of offensive to your average shit for brains ultra-PC liberal - speaking as a general economic liberal myself, but one who's not fucking PC about every little thing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
response to Rory Patrick's 100 day masturbation abstinence - the pain and sorrow of having genitals
A man (Rory Patrick) abstains from touching his penis for 100 days. Supporters then express solemn tearful solidarity with him.
An interview of the man:
http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722
Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.
As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?
In any case:
The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.
The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.
The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.
And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.
Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?
But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm
These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.
100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).
I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.
And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/
And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html
Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).
Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.
But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.
Potentially related posts:
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan
Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html
Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree
Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html
An interview of the man:
http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722
Quote from interview: "...On April 5, 2014, Rory Patrick announced to his Twitter followers that he was going to stop masturbating for 100 days. Soon, a hashtag was started: #Rory100. Friends and supporters cheered him on, sent him messages of encouragement..."
Respondents from his supporters as found at #Rory100: "...solidarity. we love you..." "...I believe..."...in my heart I believe in u & ur miracles..."My response to all:
Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.
As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?
In any case:
The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.
The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.
The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.
And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.
Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?
But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml
And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm
These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.
100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).
I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.
And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/
And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html
Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).
Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.
But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.
Potentially related posts:
Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html
Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan
Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html
Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree
Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)