Vox Day #fundie

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[In response to P.Z. Myers saying he won't back down from his pro-choice position simply because he's shown a sign with an aborted fetus, because he's already seen blood and entrails while experimenting on/dissecting animals.]

It's probably a good thing he is an atheist without any moral standards, otherwise he might demonstrate at least a modicum of conscience for the bloody acts in which he appears to take such pride. And if he happened to take any sexual gratification from them as well, who can say it is wrong from his perspective, given his total lack of any moral or ethical code. If he feels no revulsion at looking at the pictures of butchered babies, then he likely feels no revulsion and sees only meat when looking at pictures of dead Jews and murdered Ukrainians as well. The awful thing is not that the pictures do not frighten him; they do not frighten me either. The awful thing is that he does not find them revolting like any normal human being with even a minimal amount of empathy would.

This is the naked face of atheism, ladies and gentlemen. Look on it well and remember it, because it usually doesn't dare to show its disgusting and anti-human nature so openly.

71 comments

old comment by Dark_Lord_Prime

"The awful thing is that he does not find them revolting like any normal human being with even a minimal amount of empathy would."

I am an atheist, and I find those pictures revolting, just as I find pictures of dead humans revolting and dead animals on the road revolting.

If you had "even a minimal amount of empathy," you would not be trying to force your opinion upon women and their personal decisions about their own bodies.

And those pictures of aborted fetuses you wave around in your disgusting attempts to scare people? They are not, and were never, babies. They were half-formed parasites that could not have survived in the outside world. For all intents and purposes, they were nothing more than non-sentient lumps of flesh; unthinking, unfeeling extensions of a pregnant woman's biology.

old comment by Darkevilme.

We'll make this simple enough for your puny brain so pay attention:

An aborted fetus is not yet a human being.
An animal is not a human being.
Both of these things are not considered human and are therefore EQUIVALENT.

human beings are human beings. You cannot equate them to the other two things because they are human beings while the other two aren't.

or put alternately.
If A and B both do not have attribute C they can be categorized as objects that do not have C. D does have attribute C and cannot be classified as an object that does not have C.
To put D in with A and B one must use the category of ALL objects, which is not the categorization system being used by the person you're ineptly attempting to slander.

Oh and Hitler was a Catholic leading a majority christian nation and believed he was doing the work of the Christian god.

Abbreviated version if that just sailed over your head: YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!

old comment by TWoozl

The concept you fail to grasp, Vox, is that eyeballing any corpse, you're merely gazing on dead meat. The real depth of psychosis comes when you fail to understand what the meat was, before it was simply meat. The body of a mother, or a father, a grown human being, is not comparable to a cell culture. You theistic types seem to forget who a woman is, while she's still alive; You don't even have the good grace to wait for her death before proclaiming what the meat does.

Ugly words? Absolutely. But never equate the genocide of cultures, of whole ethnicities, to the acts of a scientist, or an abortionist's craft. An abortion is roughly as murderous in terms of the sentience it destroys, as excising a wart or mole. And in some cases, the volume of fetal tissue removed is comparable. But what about the mother, who may have suffered incest, or rape? What about the poor mother, who may not have the quarter to half million dollars in earning capacity necessary to raise a child to adulthood? Or the mother so bereft of social services you neo-con fundamentalists like to deny, that she doesn't have the nutrition to properly bring a pregnancy to term for the rigors, pain and stress of birth, only to give up another hopeless child for adoption. The "human" in question could not survive outside its mother, under current abortion laws. The callous argument you choose, relating to the slaughter of adult, thinking human beings merely reinforces the point that your average ultra-conservative theist has little regard for a human being post-birth. Deny health care. Reject basic services for the poor. Push education away. But heaven help the little cell-masses.

old comment by

My Gramps is an atheist. He became one after he witnessed first hand real inhumanity. Maybe it was when he was forced to stack those bodies of dead Jews. Maybe it was when his parents were shot in the street like dogs. Maybe it was when he was beaten with a spade for some imagined infraction. Or when he was contemplating eating things he wont even name because the hunger was so great. He doesn't like to talk about it really, it still makes him cry. Perhaps Vox Day and his ignoramus commenters can explain to Gramps why good Christian men were responsible for him being the only resident of his village that survived the war? They should also point out exactly how abortions can be equated to the horrors of genocide. Then they can tell him that he is in possession of a disgusting and anti-human nature. After all that, they can DIAF.

old comment by LadyJafaria

@Ryu: Yes, and there's a difference between, say, testing products on animals and researching the animals themselves. Experimenting on and dissecting specimens of animals has to be done to advance our knowledge of how animals work. Vets and conservationists have to use the research to help animals, too. I don't blame a vegetarian for not wanting to become involved in the process themselves, but research ABOUT animals pretty much has to involve, at some point, live or dead animals. It would be like expecting someone to go through auto-mechanic school without ever taking a car apart.

PZ Myers clearly likes animals, if repeatedly posting cool pictures of them (Cephalopod Friday!) is any indication, and most biologists view dissection as just a part of their job that will hopefully have positive results. They can't see it as good OR bad in and of itself, or they wouldn't be good biologists.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"It's probably a good thing he is an atheist without any moral standards"

Along with you right-wing Fundamentalist Christians, amirite?

Timothy McVeigh: The Oklahoma City atrocity. 168 people murdered, including 19 children.

And, may I point out, your own God (emphasis added):

Hosea 13:16: 'Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.'

This is the naked face of right-wing Fundamentalist Christianity, and what such is based on, ladies and gentlemen. Look on it well and remember it, because it usually doesn't dare to show its disgusting and anti-human nature so openly.

old comment by

Counter to Jake's comment I would point out that animal testing is essential still at this time. There are no in vitro tests capable of garnering the information gained from animal models.

Just to clarify my position, I like animals, I have pets and have in the past been part of teams developing in vitro tests for drugs. I also see animal testing for cosmetic industry purposes as immoral.

Animal testing is the only way to gain information on side effects and dosage before human trials. It is also an important step in testing efficacy. Cell line models and similar devices are powerful tools and are used first and in preference to animal experiments. No one would use animals unless they had to as animal work is expensive, stressful and requires special training beyond your training to do other research.

On vivisection, well, that is no longer legal, the pictures you will have seen are either from the 70s or from countries that do not have such strong ethical checks as those in Europe when it comes to animal research. Or they weren't vivisections and simply operations or dissections and your ability to distinguish in still pictures is insufficient (as doing so can be very difficult).

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

71 comments

Confused?