James Arjuna #fundie

James Arjuna #fundie amazon.com

Evodelusionism is the religion of atheists, sex addicts, murderers, Monsanto, big pharma, socialists, communists, liberals, whores, and perverts...basically all those who are destroying all life on earth like evolution.

You think you are a scientist, but you are just the spokesperson for the most disgusting religion that has ever plagued humanity.

There are three absolutes in the DNA RNA process that cannot be overcome by evolution. Therefore evolution is a myth.

1/ RNA cannot make DNA without DNA to produce the original coding. They are simultaneously needed to produce eukaryotic life. There is no physical evidence of any RNA only creature making DNA.

2/ It is impossible for the human immune system to evolve when the pathogens that destroy digest human cells already existed before the first "human" cell.
It is impossible for any of the original life forms to exist based on this. The creatures needed to be built having an integrated immune system to deal with all pathogens and even radiation from sunlight that causes cancer cells that need to be destroyed.
Cancer is an immune deficiency disease.
Here is a video of how cancer cells are supposed to be destroyed by the immune system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSrxzatNzY

3/ DNA only shows genetic degradation and nothing else. Science does not operate differently in the past than now. Science has no magic in it.
http://evolutionsciencenow.blogspot.com/2013/04/are-humans-getting-better-what-is.html

Every year 30.4 million people die from Evodelusionism and immorality.

122 comments

and the High Priests of Scientism are all back to mock all the way, their chosen paths to the grave.

seriously C=MAX, please get a life, What every wet link, wet dreamer is saying is Theory, when they should be saying Hypothesis of Evolution. It will never be developed into a real theory.

Take rocks, set them down in environment one.
Take similar rocks, set them down in environment two, with altered condition X+1. ie control variable experiment. Just wait and see in which environment life develops first.

Sorry you won't possibly get it. Its over. No theory is dead until the last proponent of it stops breathing - one of the truest maxims in science.

[Matante - the salient point, unaddressable issue is irreducible complexity]

old comment by Arctic Knight

1) DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

2) The complement system of the human immune system is not irreducibly complex. Urochordates have a functional complement system, yet they lack a component of the cascade. Common mechanisms, such as gene duplication and co-option of molecules with other roles, allow the immune system to evolve naturally. Much has been written on the subject. (Kasahara et al. 1997; Lindsay 1999; Travis 1998)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Evodelusionism is the religion of atheists, sex addicts, murderers, Monsanto, big pharma, socialists, communists, liberals, whores, and perverts...basically all those who are destroying all life on earth like evolution."

The Honourable Judge John E. Jones III would like a word with you, little internet keyboard warrior Jimmy' (from Wiki entry; emphasis added):

'In 2008, Judge Jones was awarded the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Religious Liberty Award at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, DC. In his acceptance speech, Judge Jones explained how he was blasted by Bill O'Reilly, Phyllis Schlafly, and Ann Coulter for the Kitzmiller decision. Judge Jones also remarked on the shortcomings of civics education and how the American public tends to have a limited understanding of the Constitution and the importance of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and separation of church and state established by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

PROTIP: John E. Jones III was personally appointed to the Federal bench by the Conservative Christian George Dumbya Bush, who believes in Creationism; who in turn was voted in - twice - by Christian Conservatives who believe in Creationism. Judge John E. Jones III is a Consrevative Christian.

Now, not taking into account all those juicy allegations - including 'sex addicts, murderers, socialists, communists, liberals, whores, and perverts' - you want to say to his face that he's a [i]liar[/i]? Because it's not as if he's gonna take you to court for Perjury, a very serious accusation in the eyes of the court, nosiree. [/hyper-sarcasm].

And as for those previous allegations, better bring money. Lots of money. Because I hear the libel & slander laws in the US are almost as ultra-brutal & hyper-savage as those here in the UK.

And the 1st Amendment only goes so far in protecting one's 'opinions', pal. So, you want to continue, and be reduced to walking out of court - with religious 'pride' intact - owning only the clothes on your back, or not putting your money where your legal mouth is, and destroying your own argument?

Either way, it's win-win for we Evolutionists. C'mon little Jimmy. Got the cojones...?!

@P-G Tits

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

See? No less than the law itself proves that Evolution is fact, and Creation is lies. I refer you to what I challenged little Jimmy to do, re. calling Judge John E. Jones III a liar to his face. Have you equally got the cojones to do so...?

See you in court. >:D

...oh, and see any illos in my comment here? Destroyed Argument II, much, Mr. Closet Case with his collection of 'appliances', along with his Yaoi manga & artworks by Tom of Finland in same closet...?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Liberal Christian

"There are Christians and other religious people who believe in evolution."

And how:

image

Care to explain, o P-G, how the Church of England - who Charles Darwin was in training to join their clergy in his early years - embraced with open arms his potentially beliefs-destroying discoveries via his book "On the Origin of Species"...?

Or why said C-of-E decided to bury & memorialise him in Westminster Abbey, even though (and I refer you to what I say above) from his discoveries to his death Darwin was an Agnostic...?

...or are you going to abandon this debate - and it's questions - as you have on previous occasions, and thus by omission admitting that we're right, and you're wrong.

That's what happens when fundies who start discussions/reasoned debates/logical arguments don't - or daren't - continue such to their ultimate conclusion. And we know [i]why[/i] they daren't.

All right, I've seen two semi reasonable posts. What you have still is irreducible complexity. I note the poster's use of the words, "could have"; same as might have, same as wishful thinking.

The problem is not demonstrating the machinery of living systems. Bits of a cell can be isolated and demonstrate replication features, on going activity.

The problem is a monumental/ quantum leap in orders of magnitude in complex arrangement. The problem is not 'bits of the cell don't work if isolated' - the problem is bits of the cell, even if concentrated together, and improbably so, there is still a problem of arrangement.

It is a physics problem about entropy in general. There is no reason a successful arrangement should preferentially "self select".
Monkeys only ever strike out a few small words at their type writers amidst oceans of "noise" [to use the information tech analogy]

The people trying to reverse engineer any living cell down to a minimum number of things are still left with a novel species of enormous, simply enormous total complexity.

What the hypothesis of evolution amounts to is an article of faith. I don't criticize you for that. Going into a 'legal community' and convincing poor humanities fools that it is a fact is akin to destroying the economy of Europe with pipe dreams about global warming. Everyone is dumbed down by the fraud. There's no winner.

Basically the first 7 minutes of this video describes you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gLcpSHAxh8

old comment by

All right, I've seen two semi reasonable posts. What you have still is irreducible complexity. I note the poster's use of the words, "could have"; same as might have, same as wishful thinking.

The problem is not demonstrating the machinery of living systems. Bits of a cell can be isolated and demonstrate replication features, on going activity.

The people trying to reverse engineer any living cell down to a minimum number of things are still left with a novel species of enormous, simply enormous total complexity.

Basically the first 7 minutes of this video describes you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gLcpSHAxh8
[I posted this twice because it seems someone is trying to really shut down this exchange with what is called 'noise']

old comment by Fräulein

PG, if you have questions about biology, ask a biologist. We can't explain abiogenesis in one post as well as abiogenesis lecture(s) can. Abiogenesis is not something that can be easily tested like natural selection or genetic probabilities since it is not currently happening (for us), and there are still many hypotheses which are unproven. The only thing scientists know is what could have happened, then they look at physical things instead of theories to see which ones are the most likely. You can't scientifically prove something right anyways, you can only prove it wrong. Science is made to be used to technology, entertainment for nerds, etc. not as an absolute, although there are some things which based on observable reality alone definitely did not happen.

Switching mechanism are evidently latent potentials/the unexpressed or formerly unidentified speciation to existing systems.

Viruses are artifacts of living systems not intermediaries.

The entropy problem remains. A demonstration of machinery is not a demonstration of origins without a chemical pathway from inorganic to living.

Again you use those conditional words: "I guess" and "it would be".

Just demonstrate those simple life forms; ie reverse engineer it in any environment you want to. But don't take bits of existing life and say this is how it happened. That is just 'guessing'. Fraud moreover.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAY9d-tiO_Y

old comment by Pule Thamex

However, there is a very difficult problem to solve, if indeed it can be solved at all. How is it possible that something as frothingly idiotic as James Arjuna can exist without recourse to some sort of mental imbalance as its driver? Of course, we have something very similar on FSTDT that goes by a few different appellations but usually contains Phillip-George as part of them. Try figuring out how he exists?

My theory of the existence of both James Arjuna and Phillip-George, as well as the many others like them, without resorting to mental illness as an answer, is that Bible God must indeed exist, even if only in the minds of the aforementioned buffoons. Only something which is invisible and nonexistent could be responsible.

His nonexistence gives Bible God powers almost beyond imagination, but not quite beyond imagination. For where the virulent bigot cries out to be heard above the din of compassion, love and tolerance, there to not give the bigot an answer is Bible God. But Bible God's silence is easily interpreted as a snarling justification to be a king-size jerk, or a king-size dunce, or a champion of death and ignorance. In any event, Bible God's silence has exactly the same effect as Bible God's utterances, they will both have a negative influence. For proof positive see FSTDT.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

'Irreducible Complexity'? Yeah, right.

A certain Conservative Christian judge blew that one out of the water.

As I said here:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94305&Page=2

You want to call him a liar to his face, P-G? In fact, I dare you to. If you don't, then you'll have admitted that so-called 'Irreducible Complexity' is just part & parcel of the pseudoscience snake-oil of (un)'Intelligent Design' masquerading as Creationism, one of the last gasps (certainly re. Evolution) of the right-wing Fundamentalist Christian Theocratic agenda.

...which was fortunately stopped dead in it's tracks, seen as the unjustifiable lies it really is by the Honourable Judge John E. Jones III; a Conservative Christian personally appointed to the Federal bench by George Dumbya Bush, a Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism, in turn voted in - twice - by Christian Conservatives who believe in Creationism. Hindsight isn't 20-20, I think you'll find, GOP. Another loop added to the perpetual crazy traincrash of the Religious Reich's FAIL, so committed to committing seppuku, destroying themselves P.R.-wise, and we Atheists don't have to lift a finger. Dance, our puppets, dance. >:D

One word: Perception.

You want to prove me - and Judge Jones - wrong, P-G? See you in court.

Lawfare Anon-e-moose, why doesn't that surprise me?
See Anon-e-moose, this is the system. A humanities graduate at the Ministry of Truth defines your words for you.

Wittgenstein etc. No you don't get it. Who's he?

Meanwhile. Pasteur, Abiogenesis, Empiricism,

,,,,,,, and honest to God, without prejudice, I don't believe you understand any of those words.

Thus Anon-e-moose, It will really come back, down to you preaching secular humanism to the legally restrained. Because from your Gaytopian Ministry of Truth, dissent will be illegal.

It's already half way there and you can't recognize it. So many now look to China for the future of Intellectual Freedom and defence of liberty. True, this is slightly hyperbolic in part, but only just slightly.

In the end. Its just a new face to fascism you're talking at me.

While you load the blunderbuss to shoot the next messenger that knocks at your door, Behold, the Chinese rising to buy and sell your cloister/digs with loose change.
http://onthinktanks.org/2012/11/15/chinese-think-tanks-are-more-intellectually-independent-than-you-think/

old comment by Fräulein

PG, Tractatus 6.5 has some good advice for you. I can't tell if you're trying to stereotype people here as only knowing about science or what. Guess what? I'm not like everybody else, nor is anybody but everybody else itself, so feel free to argue with me until people decide to ban you.

A guy called John11inch "I hope that's the size of your feet" has a Tractatus quote that might be particularly useful to you. If you want to watch his videos, free uploads of Karlheinz Stockhausen and Morton Feldman and their ilk, you can from the front page. If you read the comments, you might just find quotes like "My ship has no rudder, and it is driven by the wind that blows in the under most regions of death." I don't think you really want to go into this territory.

old comment by Fräulein

Since I have a double post after yours anyway, I might as well:

I'm not sure how Avant-Garde Music reminds you of Brian Eno, or why you only listened to the second part out of eight.
None if that was banter. I was advising you not to do what you just did, that is, start going into academic and/or artsy territory. I just use lots of subtlety.
Irreducible complexity doesn't apply to any current scientific theories. If it is considered synonymous with emergence/holism then it is an important topic in theoretical physics, but that's it.

PG, please stop either trolling or pretending to understand things you don't. I admit that I don't know tons about science because I'm not a scientist. I'm not here to be concerned with science either. In a way atheism is similar to postmodernism as a deconstruction of God, at least in its social effects (think feminism etc.) I'm not an atheist or a postmodernist but I can agree with them both on some matters because sometimes it's about common sense. On the other hand, you seem to be stuck in so-called Derrida's basement: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1539

Explain how your views have anything to do with human decency and I'll listen. I know you're a troll (what annoying faker wouldn't be considered a troll?) but at least I'd learn a little more about how some people think.

Let me put that another way Fraulien. There is no stronger theory in science than "life begets life" - up until him spontaneous biogenesis was a tenable theory. Never since.

You can do a one hour lecture in some subjects and get the basic ideas. My university lectures in science are over twenty years ago but the fundamentals of thermodynamics, entropy, latent heat haven't changed one iota.

I skirt a lot of topics as a casual reader. Fuzzy logic has been one of the biggest qualitative and quantitative design engineering break-through's of the last hundred years.

the Subject of Statistical Linguistic Topology is new ground and fascinating. A highly underdeveloped science. But it's there. New and unexplored as a frontier.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

And if you're so sure that what a book of fairytales claims is correct, and trumps Reality, where were you when the defence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover needed you?

All I'm hearing is just so much butthurt that facts backed up by evidence - the basis of Reality - doesn't conform to your perception of how you think things should be. Make Reality bend to your will. Go ahead, little boy.

If you scream and stamp your wittle feet for long enough, maybe those nasty facts will go away.

Maybe.

And no amount of what you think is 'moral' will repeal the laws that are The Dominant Paradigm, just because you think what two people of the same gender do is 'icky', or that they having the same legal rights as hetero couples somehow affects you personally.

Now now, don't cry P-G. Aw, diddums. Here's your security blankie called 'Conservative Christianity' to make you feel better; here, hide under it, and maybe the icky bum-boys might go away.

Maybe.

Now point out on this doll where the nasty Homosexual Agenda touched you personally...?

Kitty. Cognitive dissonance again. It is impossible in your world view for there to be evidence to the contrary. A three of four minute google will take you to a series of testimonies of people who have drifted away from Gay lifestyles or dramatically renounced them and just gone straight.

Now I've been on and on about traditional definitions of marriage and my resolve about conjugal rights and responsibilities has actually strengthened through this time.

But this thing about passive recipient and codependency in gay relationships is where I wanted to dig deeper with the narrative. Someone who feels compelled to have a dozen different partners in one night seems to have some sort of addictive behaviour going on.

While I suspect much of the motivation to the gay lobby is a noble egalitarian sentiment I suspect as many a jaded old "fag" simply wants to divert attention from themselves and maintain fresh supplies for their conga line of pretty pretty precious.

Kitty. I'm not here to bash.

old comment by KittyKaboom

Phillip-George(c)2013: ...and further searches will show that these same people either felt that they were living a lie and allowed themselves to be who they actually are (as in, accepted their homosexuality), continued to live their lives unfulfilled or killed themselves.

You can't just 'turn it off' or as Jerry Seinfeld put it - switch teams.

Choose to believe as you wish. The truth says otherwise and religious deprogramming programs for homosexuals has done more harm than good.

Christians could always choose to mind their own god damned business. Live and let live and all that.

You won't, but you could.

Also, you apparently don't understand what cognitive dissonance actually is or you wouldn't use it to describe me. I have no conflicts in my views. I am entirely at peace. Sorry if that bothers you (not really), but it is what it is.

Kitty, the definition of cognitive dissonance I've maintained is holding two mutually exclusive statements of supposed 'fact' - neither resolving the logical conflict nor entirely acknowledging it.

Some times, not always, people can stop cycles of self harm when they realize why they are in those cycles.

A girl friend [years ago] who worked in suicide prevention telephone counseling tells of frustration at investing time with people sometimes being told after half an hour that they were masturbating. She wanted to always be out there doing a good with her efforts,, but the harsh reality was that some of the people were simply using her for their perception of twisted pleasure.

I've put some material into this to get people thinking about themselves, addiction, using others, compulsion. But I can't get people to look where they never have. As a slightly new ager, a bit designer vague, with genuinely loose dogma in a lot of areas, I don't think you've looked - at what's out there.

Living and loving that line from a B grade made for TV sci-fi "the Truth is out there" - have you really looked?

[Hasan - I cherry pick all history, why on earth wouldn't I]

old comment by KittyKaboom

You, however, are coming from a place of absolute denial and steadfast clinging to a bigoted idea that gay is somehow a choice. Who in their right mind would choose to be gay in christian, evangelical America? Who would choose to be part of a group that the majority religion sees as less than human and a threat?

My best friend for many years was a gay man who knew he liked boys from the time he was five. He hid it from his family for as long as he could and his loving, christian family disowned him when he came out - yet they still hid it from his father because they were afraid he'd kill him. His dad died never knowing that his son was gay. I have heard this time and time again, "I knew when I was a child,". Years before you even know what sex actually is. So stop trying to convince me that it's a choice and that gays deserve to be discriminated against because they 'chose' their lifestyle. They go through hell daily for something that is as integral a part of themselves as their hair color and shoe size.

Also, don't ever accuse me of not doing my research. Not only was I once a christian myself and understand the perspective, but I have had the benefit of knowing people who are homosexual and they all have had remarkably similar experiences. That is in addition to a great deal of reading and checking statistics on the subject. Before you get off on the BS about sexual abuse - no, none of them were.

They're just gay. They're also good people who don't deserve the harassment and abuse they have to put up with from christians who neither understand what their lives are like, nor care to interact with them (unless it's to get in their faces and screech about hell) and find out.

Kitty,

I confess, "Christian houses" house the good the bad and the ugly. Jesus said that though didn't he? It would become a great tree and every sort of bird would roost in it. From vultures to humming birds.

I'll put this to you. Pink Floyd, a member of the band suffers from and struggles with Schizophrenia. Writes a brilliant celebrated Album which contains the line "there's someone in my head but it's not me "

Ron Coleman, schizophrenic, sudden onset about early twenties, heavily abused by the psychiatric industry, forms a self help alliance, which operates on the central premise that spirits are real.

I've looked wide. Here you wish to say, they are born this way, have no choice, must indulge an urge, their suffering is all someone else's fault. All moral agency gone, all responsibility abdicated/

The film A Beautiful Mind is based on a true story. John Nash says that in his experience of schizophrenia there was a sense of decision. Letting go. Allowing the persona to experience the affect.

If I thought this was so simple an issue I might say, Damn them they're all going to hell.

I don't think its simple. Neither do I think the politics is pure on either side. The utopia you advance is a naive thing.

All gays are sensitive, genuinely loving, not users, corrupt, vain, contentious.

And always, people have choices to make. Though they may not want you to think that.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@KittyKaboom, Kuno

Still not seeing P-G pointing out on the doll where the nasty 'Homosexual Agenda' touched him personally. Speaking as a straight man, I can say exactly how much the emergent LGBT culture and they given equal rights under the law* has affected me personally, physically and/or psychologically:

Zero.

Apart from people of the same gender, who are consenting, doing what bigots consider 'Icky', nor they being able to legally Gaybash... er, I mean profess their 'faith' in public, nor are schools/colleges in the US allowed to so much as mention Biblical Creation as fact, beyond RE/Philosophy classes, I personally don't see how those laws affect me - a British left-wing Atheist - personally.

*- Which brings me to the ICBM with the 50 megaton legal warhead: Romans 13:1-5:

1: 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.'

2: 'Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.'

3: 'For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended'

4: 'For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5: 'Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.'

PROTIP: Kitzmiller vs. Dover was in 2005. During Conservative Christian who believes in Creationism, George Dumbya Bush's administration; who personally appointed John E. Jones III to the Federal bench three years previously.

Judge Jones is also a Conservative Christian.

Romans 13:1-5, P-G m'boy. Or methinks you're not the 'Conservative Christian' you claim to be, but purely the shit-stirring, shitposting troll you really are, otherwise, if you were as 'Christian' as you purport to be, you'd have known about that part of the 'Word of God', which as a 'Conservative Christian' you have to obey, word-for-word, letter-for-letter (and absolutely no cherry-picking, 're-interpretarion' etc allowed, neither!), ergo if you don't obey the law - as Romans 13:1-5 forces you to, you're going to Hell.

Aren't paradoxes such a bitch, eh?! >:D

'Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles'

-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

We Atheists know more about your own 'beliefs' than you do.

Speaking as a straight man, I can say exactly how much the emergent LGBT culture and they given equal rights under the law* has affected me personally

How do you know that? Are you sure?
maybe [strike]sicko[/strike] and you could hit it off?

He's willing, keen, on all fours waiting for you?

I'm not restricting your "right" to unlimited pleasure with him one iota, never have, never will.

So don't verbal people .... unless all that inquisition stuff 'turns' you on.

Now scream witch, bitch, blue murder, censors get cutting.

or make a point. [like your one about irrational numbers - what a teacher - oh what a teacher! golf clap still hasn't subsided]

old comment by KittyKaboom

Thanks for paraphrasing, as though I need you to interpret for me.

Being human, of course LGBT will have less-than-decent people in their group. The ones I have met have been good people, however, I understand that they are not always.

Why should I have to explain that to you as though you were a fucking five year old?

What bothers you more; the fact that I see them as human beings or that I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they express views on their own sexuality as being an integral part of themselves rather than condescendingly asserting to them that it can't be the way they know it to be because I know better than they do and it is really something else?

Of course, I could also mention that you and your ilk sit at the other end of this particular spectrum, where every gay man represents a threat, every gay relationship is based upon sex and could never be about love or attachment, and every LGBT person carries a host of hideous diseases.

I like my way better. Seeing other humans as, well, human is more in tune with my personal philosophy/beliefs.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@KittyKaboom

I notice P-G hasn't answered that question:

'Speaking as a straight man, I can say exactly how much the emergent LGBT culture and they given equal rights under the law has affected me personally'

Which of course I answered, as it's an extremely easy question: Zero.

Brings to mind this thread, specifically this comment (by doomcup):

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94310&Page=1#1539713

Notice something - or particularly things (as in plural) - in this thread, and especially in relation to the above linked one?

1- P-G hasn't - or daren't - answered that question as a straight person such as myself would, as (to me) it's an ultra-easy one (just as I did in that linked thread). As per Bryan Fischite in that thread, P-G is argumentally cornered.

2- P-G hasn't - or daren't - commented in that linked thread. As per the hyper-easy question posited by me in this thread. Because as per Bryan Fischite there, P-G's lack of an answer reveals more about him than he claims to the contrary.

Re. the pic of Fred Phelps in that thread, one doesn't need to be Freud to figure out any & all anti-LGBT types. Closet Cases all.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Now, as I said, Speaking as a straight man, I can say exactly how much the emergent LGBT culture and they given equal rights under the law has affected me personally: Zero.

And again, I ask the question posed on other threads: Point out on the doll where the nasty 'Homosexual Agenda' touched you personally...?

Because I'm yet to be so much as to be touched by a gay man once. Nor have any wanted me to reciprocate. I'm not sexually interested in them, they're not sexually interested in me. One word: Gaydar.

'But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'

-Thomas Jefferson

'But it does me no injury for my neighbours who are adult, consenting & of the same gender to do what they want in the privacy of their home. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'

-Anon-e-moose

Now, just answer the question:

If you're as straight as you claim, how much has LGBT people, and the emergent LGBT culture - also same-sex couples having equal legal rights as hetero ones - affected you personally?

My (ultra-easy) answer: Zero. I expect a numerical answer (as per Bryan Fischite asked the question which required an extremely easy 'Yes' or 'No' answer) from you, P-G. As, say, a percentage of how much teh ebil Homosexuals (via their 'Agenda') has somehow done something to you for the worse, physically (thus the question 'Now show me on the doll where the nasty Homosexual Agenda touched you personally?').

Remember what doomcup said in that linked thread. If you dare click on it, as the lack of comment(s) by you on such proves to the contrary.

KittyKaboom, Kuno, and everyone else, P-G's fucked, argumentally & logically. Either way, if he answers - or evades the question as per usual in his trademark unjustifiably & non-sequitur-esque obtuse way - he is. Or he doesn't, thus his lack of an answer speaks volumes about him. >:D

--EDIT--

Well, there you have it. P-G = Bryan Fischite as per that interview (via that link). And like him, P-G's already answered the question.

All it would've taken is to answer said question, by what numerical gradient/percentage does teh ebil nasty 'Homosexual Agenda' affect him personally (also - as per my previous request - to point out on the doll where said nasty 'Homosexual Agenda' has touched him personally?).

As I - a straight man - answered that extremely easy question: as to how much the emergent LGBT culture etc has affected me personally: Zero.

I personally have absolutely no problem with what adult, consenting gay men do in the privacy of their home (I mean, it's not as if they go around demanding that they enter other peoples' domiciles and perform said consenting acts in their front rooms). So what's P-G's?

That is the $64 trillion question.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@KittyKaboom

The people 'influencing' the judicial system...?:

image

Never mind Backwards Day, must be Backwards Century for P-G.

Holland: still to this day, a mainly Protestant country (King William of Orange, and all that jazz), with the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe, if not the world. Yet, between 2001 right up to today, it still exists. And before then, soft drug use was/is tolerated, and brothels were (and still are) legal in it's capital Amsterdam.

Paradoxes. Can be such a cruel bitch when they want to be, eh...?! >:D

And every second P-G refuses to answer that ultra-easy question (which I did with no problems whatsoever), his silence speaks more volumes about him - a la Bryan Fischite - than are contained in the British Library and Library of Congress combined.

James Arjuna #fundie amazon.com

122 comments

Confused?