Anti-gay pseudoscience

[derrida]

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=996

Nearly 600 evangelical Christians packed into the gymnasium of the Calvary Christian Academy in Forth Worth, Texas, to witness a ceremony on a Sunday in June. With a flourish of his pen, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the first bill while the televangelist at his side praised Jesus.
Gov. Perry shared the stage with celebrity Pentecostal faith healer Rob Parsley, whose television program is carried by 1,400 stations nationwide. In the audience were the leaders of two prominent family values action groups: Donald Wildmon, chairman of the American Family Association, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

The first document Perry signed that day was a parental notification law requiring girls under 18 to obtain parental permission before having an abortion. The second proposed that the state constitution be amended to specifically prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying. (Texas voters overwhelmingly approved the amendment this Nov. 8.)

Parsley heaped praise on Gov. Perry for "protecting the children of Texas from the gay agenda." Then he rattled off a series of shocking statistics: "Gay sex is a veritable breeding ground for disease," he said. "Only 1% of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States of America is 43 years of age. A lesbian can only expect to live to be 45 years of age. Homosexuals represent 2% of the population, yet today they're carrying 60% of the known cases of syphilis."

The televangelist did not reveal where he got those numbers. He stated them starkly as facts to be accepted on blind faith. But they are not facts. They are gross distortions lifted straight from the pages of pseudo-scientific studies by Dr. Paul Cameron, a crackpot psychologist and champion of the anti-gay crusade.


Not one of Cameron's anti-gay studies has been published in a respected scientific journal with rigorous content review standards. Instead, Cameron props up his façade of credibility by publishing his studies in Psychological Reports, a Montana-based vanity magazine that advertises itself as "The Scientific Manifestation of Free Speech" and will publish practically anything for $27.50 per page.

Unlike a serious academic journal, Psychological Reports does not employ a peer review panel of scientists to guard against flawed studies. But its title looks good in footnotes, and Cameron has been publishing his work in the magazine since 1972, long before he joined the anti-gay crusade. His first study in Psychological Reports concerned the relationship between pet and non-pet owners and animals. Cameron concluded that pet owners are far more likely to be kind to animals than non-pet owners.


Cameron moved his base of operations to Colorado five years later, in 1992, after supporters of a state constitutional amendment to ban civil rights protections for gays and lesbians distributed 100,000 copies of his study 'What Homosexuals Do" (sample statistic: 17% eat human feces) to Colorado voters one week before they went to the polls. The amendment passed. Later that year, during the raging debate over President Clinton's proposal to allow gays in the military, Army officials circulated Cameron's studies inside the Pentagon.

A 550-item questionnaire designed by Cameron was at the heart of the ISIS study. The questions were oddly constructed and deeply personal: "With how many homosexual virgins have you had homosexual relations?" and "How would you feel about sharing toilet facilities with a homosexual?" (Multiple-choice answers to the latter question included, "Very positive. I'd enjoy it greatly.") Another question asked respondents why they thought they had developed their sexual orientation and gave a checklist of 44 reasons including "I was seduced by a homosexual adult" and "I failed at heterosexuality." According to contemporary newspaper articles, residents in several neighborhoods targeted by Cameron's field teams called the police to report that perverts in the area were asking sleazy questions.

Legitimate scientists have identified and described in detail multiple fundamental flaws in the ISIS study's methodology and statistical analysis, any one of which would be enough to destroy its credibility. But still, to this day, Cameron's 1983 survey serves as the religious right's primary wellspring of anti-gay fear mongering.

"Whenever frightening claims about homosexual sex habits or child molestation are reported in pamphlets, videotapes or other materials, chances are the information has been taken from this single study," writes David Williams, director of the Kentucky Gay and Lesbian Library and Archives, who tracks the use of Cameron's statistics. "As propaganda, it has taken on a life of its own. As information, however, it's stunningly useless."

The same year Cameron conducted the ISIS survey, he released a separate study claiming that homosexuals are "10-20 times more likely than heterosexuals to molest children," a startling figure that still frequently pops up in hard-right religious sermons and AM radio screeds.

Cameron based that finding on a 1978 study by Nicholas Groth, the highly respected director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections. Groth had interviewed 175 convicted child molesters and found that more of them had molested boys than girls. Cameron's statistic is derived from the false assumption that men who molest boys are gay, despite the fact that Groth's original study found that none of the men identified himself as homosexual. Instead, the pedophiles were either heterosexual outside of their criminal behavior or were what Groth termed "fixated pedophiles with no interest in sex with adults."

Groth was outraged and filed a formal complaint with the American Psychological Association that led to Cameron losing his professional accreditation. "Dr. Cameron misrepresents my findings and distorts them to advance his homophobic views," Groth wrote the APA. "He disgraces his profession."

[ziggytrix]

You fail at heterosexuality!

[homoperfect]

This angers me. I don't know how to properly respond. I fear the facts are mearly insignificant details which only get in the way of our personal agenda. Reason is only a tool of the devil. People who follow it blindly otherwise they don't love god. I am amazed even though I should be desensitized from this commonly happening.

[ItalianStereotype]

let me guess...





you're gay?

[ItalianStereotype]

am I close?

[homoperfect]

Hon, you're right on target.

[ItalianStereotype]

alright, just wanting to make sure. I mean, it wasn't very clear there for a while. your name could really go either way.

[ItalianStereotype]

I mean, here I was thinking it was supposed to be like hom operfect. I thought you were just being crazy!

[homoperfect]

Right, It was unclear, I could have ben a really akward ackronym. I thought the HOMO tipped me off!

[ItalianStereotype]

no, I think you need to be gayer. people will be confused!

[ItalianStereotype]

SEE I TOLD YOU

[sadie]

talk about gay-ups.

[Dr. Boogie]

Subtlety forum.

[Kulturkampf]

The way that the PC brigade attains power is by making opposing beliefs immoral, and thus not publishing studies done by scientists with results that do not match their own.

They have a monopoly on the truth after a while, because they are the only ones allowed to report it.

[Pub Lover]

If you had received a slightly more intensive education in scientific history, you would know that unorthodox views are rarely accepted by the scientific community at large, Mister Verville. For a recent example, it wasn't until nearly the end of the 20th century that the theory of plate tectonics was accepted by a majority of US geologists, despite it being first demonstrated in the 18th... Or maybe not, as Wikipedia is annoyingly different in it's recording of this. Either way, scientists dislike being told they are wrong in their beliefs, almost as much as clergy and has little to do with some supposed 'PC Brigade'. Although, it should be accepted that the majority of activists, of both sides, misuse data to suit thier purposes.

[Kulturkampf]

You actually are speaking relatively rationally, publover.

[homoperfect]

It's the art of altering facts to support your own agenda. By cutting out all uncertanty words such as "may", "perhaps", "might" and so forth as well as rounding numbers and using power words that appeal to ones emotions you bypass the need for real facts. the targeted group has no desire to look up the facts and search out the truth because their emotions have been tageted affectively. Science does look down on these facticians. They have no known certianty of the work that was done nor have the conducted a none biased study to gather such information. the facticians approach is nothing more than a sequence of convincing fallicies that appeal to emotions more than to logic.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Religion is nothing but irrational ignorance. It's depressing that we haven't yet moved beyond superstition into reason by this century.

[derrida]

The way that the PC brigade attains power is by making opposing beliefs immoral, and thus not publishing studies done by scientists with results that do not match their own.

They have a monopoly on the truth after a while, because they are the only ones allowed to report it.

Except for the part where the tragically unpublished studies aren't fit for fuckin mad magazine...

In 1997, former Secretary of Education, Book of Virtues author and gambling enthusiast William Bennett cited Cameron's obituary study in a Weekly Standard column titled, "Clinton, Gays, and the Truth." Later that year on the ABC news program "This Week," Bennett said, "The best available research suggests that the average life span of male homosexuals is around 43 years of age. Forty three."

After Bennett took Cameron's life expectancy figure for gays to a mainstream audience, the online magazine Slate published a devastating critique of Cameron's work by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. The average age at death for AIDS victims, the magazine noted, was about 40. For Cameron's figure of 43 years old to be true, Slate pointed out, gay people who never contract AIDS could have a life expectancy of no more than 46 years -- a truly absurd proposition -- even assuming that half the gay population will eventually contract AIDS.

"Looked at another way," Slate reported, "if even half the gay male population stays HIV-negative and lives to an average age of 75, an average overall life span of 43 implies that gay males with AIDS die at an implausibly early age (11, actually)."


...and the researcher's work shows up in the mouths of folks linked to the republican political machine and mainstream religious clergy you'd be totally right!

I haven't read a single thing that indicates that this guy is anything but a handsomely paid political truth-maker. Shit, he's so widely cited he doesn't even have to publish in respected journals for his shit to be heard by millions of Americans. Fuck no he's no underdog. In fact he's probably on par with the shittiest intolerant left wing academics. Why the fuck should I have to choose between supporting a braindead trustafarian with a che t shirt and a suit and tie paid liar?

[homoperfect]

I wouldn't go as far as to say Religion is irational ignorance. I have found that many folks seek answers and feel uncomfortable when gaps are left unfilled. The answers must be clear cut and have no grey areas. This is where I have my problems with religion. It becomes more cult like rather than spiritual. I believe whole heartedly in Logic, reason, and the art of thinking rationally in general. Yet, I believe in religion but not as a controling institution. I think religion serves the nessisary elements for a community to function. chuck the theology out the window, it's not like anyone really listens or cares, and you get a community gathering of coffee and donuts every sunday. It's the ideal place to find a lead to jobs, cheap real estate, recreational activities and much more. Luckily there are churches out there that do care about the facts and are accepting of all. I await the day I, as a homosexual, will be able to marry within my church. This is a very real dream considering my church has been pushing for the issue for several years now and has almost approved it. Some churhces will be acknowledging gay marriage before the state will.

[Chojin]

At least 90% of all wars are started by heterosexual males. Nearly all female rapes are caused by them, too! JIHAD.

I need to get $30 so I too can be controversial :<

Another question asked respondents why they thought they had developed their sexual orientation and gave a checklist of 44 reasons including "I was seduced by a homosexual adult" and "I failed at heterosexuality.
This part made me lol :< GAY MEN ARE LIKE VAMPIRES, OR ZOMBIES. OR THEY'RE JUST QUITTERS.

It really is a shame that America is so deeply retarded, otherwise I could think this is hilarious instead of just embarrassing ;<

[Kulturkampf]

It's the art of altering facts to support your own agenda. By cutting out all uncertanty words such as "may", "perhaps", "might" and so forth as well as rounding numbers and using power words that appeal to ones emotions you bypass the need for real facts. the targeted group has no desire to look up the facts and search out the truth because their emotions have been tageted affectively. Science does look down on these facticians. They have no known certianty of the work that was done nor have the conducted a none biased study to gather such information. the facticians approach is nothing more than a sequence of convincing fallicies that appeal to emotions more than to logic.

This can easily be applied to both sides.

[Kulturkampf]

Religion is nothing but irrational ignorance. It's depressing that we haven't yet moved beyond superstition into reason by this century.

How is religion irrational? It has been a driving force behind philosophy and reason for centuries, from Muslim thinkers like Averroes to countless Christian philosophers who exploredo the depths of rational and reason.

Reason itself was in many ways pioneered by the religious, whether it is Christian or Pagan (Socrates believed that certainly there was a God, based on an intelligent design theory).

Whatever you personally think about religion is irrelevent.

Stop being an arrogant twit.

[homoperfect]

It's the art of altering facts to support your own agenda. By cutting out all uncertanty words such as "may", "perhaps", "might" and so forth as well as rounding numbers and using power words that appeal to ones emotions you bypass the need for real facts. the targeted group has no desire to look up the facts and search out the truth because their emotions have been tageted affectively. Science does look down on these facticians. They have no known certianty of the work that was done nor have the conducted a none biased study to gather such information. the facticians approach is nothing more than a sequence of convincing fallicies that appeal to emotions more than to logic.

This can easily be applied to both sides.

It can indeed. Although I do think it is fair to say some use it more effectively than others.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"How is religion irrational? It has been a driving force behind philosophy and reason for centuries, from Muslim thinkers like Averroes to countless Christian philosophers who exploredo the depths of rational and reason.

Reason itself was in many ways pioneered by the religious, whether it is Christian or Pagan (Socrates believed that certainly there was a God, based on an intelligent design theory). "

If you would just think for a second, you would realize that they stopped reasoning. Religion was a way to rationalize the world for people centuries ago because they could only rely on superstition and uneducated guesses. Fortunately, we now have science to base our reasoning on and can make educated guesses based on evidence. What Socrates believed or the usefulness of religion to primative people is pointless. Certainly religion could be seen then as a way to rationalize a complex world (like, a God pulling the Sun on a huge chariot or something equally hilarious), but we don't need ignorant guessing when we can develop evidence through scientific methods. That's not saying that science is always right, but the beauty of it is it will admit its wrong unlike religion which is always right.

[Kulturkampf]

Have you ever talked with someone from outside of the Western hemisphere?

In Korea, Japan, China, and other nations people are raised as atheists, and their general view on religion is just as simple as anyone elses, and their rationale is just as simple....

Westerners say...

"I don't really know, I mean, I think there is a God and that we should act this ay or what,"

and Easterner atheists say,

"really, I just think there is no God, etc."

You'd be so disappointed iwth how many Korean atheits I have met who are not profound thinkers rejecting the cloak of ignorance, but rather are just normal people who require as much intellectual liberation as a believer.

Atheists outside of the West are intellectually lame as much as Beleivers in the West.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Ok, but we weren't talking about aetheism, we were talking about religion. People should actually be agnostic, since you can't prove that there is or isn't a God. I also never said all aethiests were enlightened, so I don't see where you're going with that beyond that you couldn't argue what I actually wrote because you were owned.

[homoperfect]

This depends on the type of justification you're using. I myself tend to side with Descartes and demand indefeasable evidence. All else I accept as belief. I also believe that some beliefs are stronger than others. where I find our senses fail us and they are not reliable enough for indefeasible evidence, I do think the senses strengthen beliefs. a belief that shows empirical proof is stronger than a belief that shows no proof at all. but either way, I can not know then with absolute certainty.

[Kulturkampf]

Ok, but we weren't talking about aetheism, we were talking about religion. People should actually be agnostic, since you can't prove that there is or isn't a God. I also never said all aethiests were enlightened, so I don't see where you're going with that beyond that you couldn't argue what I actually wrote because you were owned.

If religion is a tool of ignorance, then wouldn't it mean that those who did not have religion were thus in some way liberated of at least one major form of ignorance?

Religion isn't a minor thing, and if you regard religion as an ignorant superstition, wouldn't it mean that those without religion would suddenly be less ignorant and better for it?

What do you mean, or haven't you thought it all out yet?

[Kulturkampf]

This depends on the type of justification you're using. I myself tend to side with Descartes and demand indefeasable evidence. All else I accept as belief. I also believe that some beliefs are stronger than others. where I find our senses fail us and they are not reliable enough for indefeasible evidence, I do think the senses strengthen beliefs. a belief that shows empirical proof is stronger than a belief that shows no proof at all. but either way, I can not know then with absolute certainty.

I think most things that are truly important defy evidence or proof.

Who really cares about the distance between the sun and the earth? Who really cares how many meters long a man can grow?

What matters is that there is a sun, there is an earth, and that there is a man. What matters is that I got into a fight and broke my nose and it made me feel masculine; what matters is that I met a girl and I fell in love; what matters is that in the summer of 1996 I got a handjob in a bathroom and it made me feel so good I came or that in the summer of 2003 I entered the US Army as a Private and it gave me a sense of both honor and fright as I went off to basic combat training.

It does not matter the science behind any of it... Who cares about how my nose was broken? Who cares what the dimensions of the girl I fell in lvoe with were? Who cares the size of the bathroom or the science behind sucking shit at basic combat training?

It does not matter the science, because the science is just a description of facts that help us build pictures and senses of what is happening when we aren't there. I tell you I broke my nose from a punch thrown by a 6'3" man weighting 240 pounds and we get an idea of "owe, that must have hurt," or I say I fell in love with the cutest girl ever, and we say "Ohhh, I see!" or I say the bathroom had a head lamp on instead of a regular light "sexy!" or I say that I went to BCT in summer in the South (sweaty, nasty, no good)....

The only reason the science matters, the only reason the hard, physical proof matters and the only reason that the Earth, the Sun, and your fellow men matter at all to you is because...

You feel.

You feel something from these things, and without that feeling... It would mean nothing.

Our world is based on a feeling, not on a science.

And who can prove a feeling?

I can only communicate through shallow words what I felt when I was kissing the woman I loved, and biologically you can tell me about the sensitivies of the nerves in our mouths and our tongues and the proximity between us, and a psychological need to feel another person close to you, and you can explain it a million ways...

But none of that mattered, because when this girl kissed me the feeling was indescribable through word or science.

If another man kissed her, he would not feel the same thing, and it would not matter, and it would never matter to me what another man felt, and he could never tell me exactly what he felt if he really felt something...

But what matters, and what will only matter, is that I felt.

[ziggytrix]

If religion is a tool of ignorance, then wouldn't it mean that those who did not have religion were thus in some way liberated of at least one major form of ignorance?

Religion isn't a minor thing, and if you regard religion as an ignorant superstition, wouldn't it mean that those without religion would suddenly be less ignorant and better for it?

What do you mean, or haven't you thought it all out yet?

Wow, if A then B, if NOT A, then NOT B right? RIGHT??! HVEN't YOU tTHOUGHT THIS THRU?! :foam

[derrida]

^^^^ relativism: coming soon to a conservative near you!

[Zhukov]

How long do you think it would take before it becomes really important how far from the sun we are? I don't really care, but being so close to the ozone hole, I can feel the uv rays killing me.

[Dr. Boogie]

Am I the only one who thinks it odd that KK is a total skinhead retard when it comes to all things, except for religion, in which case he becomes a touchy-feely homogay?

[mburbank]

"Our world is based on a feeling, not on a science. "
-KiKiDee

I have a very strong feeling, KultureKlub, that you are positively SO stupid it beggars the imagination. Seriously. Science might reveal that you are a clinical idiot or perhaps borderline retarded, but I don't care because I feel you are a babbling ninny who will one day say the wrong thing to the wrong person and get his face pushed in. Not the politically incorrct thing, but literally the wrong thing, as in a statement which is demonstrably wrong. My feeling is that you are a wash of emotions barely contained by the leather person shaped bag you slosh around in and that your complete lack of reason is a diagnosable personality disorder, but that there's no need to diagnos it, because I already feel you are a boob.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

If religion is a tool of ignorance, then wouldn't it mean that those who did not have religion were thus in some way liberated of at least one major form of ignorance?

Religion isn't a minor thing, and if you regard religion as an ignorant superstition, wouldn't it mean that those without religion would suddenly be less ignorant and better for it?

What do you mean, or haven't you thought it all out yet?

Obviously you know little to nothing about critical thinking. An absence of one thing does not entail a presence of another. Just because religion is ignorance does not make aetheism the lack of ignorance. Aetheist can be ignorant without religion, but religion in itself insists upon blind faith. Blind faith in something without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, is ignorant. Someone who is aetheist has an advantage because hopefully they will question the world and look for deeper answers beyond the stock bullshit that religions feed people. Without the thrist for knowledge, these people will be no better off.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"I think most things that are truly important defy evidence or proof.

Who really cares about the distance between the sun and the earth? Who really cares how many meters long a man can grow?

What matters is that there is a sun, there is an earth, and that there is a man. What matters is that I got into a fight and broke my nose and it made me feel masculine; what matters is that I met a girl and I fell in love; what matters is that in the summer of 1996 I got a handjob in a bathroom and it made me feel so good I came or that in the summer of 2003 I entered the US Army as a Private and it gave me a sense of both honor and fright as I went off to basic combat training. "

You are retarded aren't you? There is no other explaination. All of those things you mentioned (beyond the handjob which must have been made up) has evidence to back it up. Science isn't necessarily just measurements of lengths you dolt, it involves observation. We can observe there are people, we can observe their is Earth, a Sun, and a Moon. What we can't observe is a god, miracles, or any of the other crap religion tries to feed people.

Wow, I am wasting my time debating a child.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If another man kissed her, he would not feel the same thing, and it would not matter, and it would never matter to me what another man felt, and he could never tell me exactly what he felt if he really felt something...

AAHHHH!!!!!

[Kulturkampf]

If religion is a tool of ignorance, then wouldn't it mean that those who did not have religion were thus in some way liberated of at least one major form of ignorance?

Religion isn't a minor thing, and if you regard religion as an ignorant superstition, wouldn't it mean that those without religion would suddenly be less ignorant and better for it?

What do you mean, or haven't you thought it all out yet?

Wow, if A then B, if NOT A, then NOT B right? RIGHT??! HVEN't YOU tTHOUGHT THIS THRU?! :foam

I have.

If religion is ignorance, than to not be religious enlightens oneself to a degree.

To reject God is to be more enlightened if religion is something that is producing of ignorance.

[Kulturkampf]

"Our world is based on a feeling, not on a science. "
-KiKiDee

I have a very strong feeling, KultureKlub, that you are positively SO stupid it beggars the imagination. Seriously. Science might reveal that you are a clinical idiot or perhaps borderline retarded, but I don't care because I feel you are a babbling ninny who will one day say the wrong thing to the wrong person and get his face pushed in. Not the politically incorrct thing, but literally the wrong thing, as in a statement which is demonstrably wrong. My feeling is that you are a wash of emotions barely contained by the leather person shaped bag you slosh around in and that your complete lack of reason is a diagnosable personality disorder, but that there's no need to diagnos it, because I already feel you are a boob.

Check this out:


http://x99.xanga.com/957b60200053438689507/b26477355.jpg


I do not fear being hit in the face or beaten down; in the park, for fun, me and my friends beat each other up because we are skinheads, and that is what skinheads do; we drink, we fight, we bleed, and we continue to drink and then we meet again next weekend for as much of a rauccous time.

It does not matter if I win or lose a fight, or if my face is broken and beaten down, because I am fucking living, man, fucking living!

I am so in love with life it is absurd. Every day I have a stunning cumshot.

[Kulturkampf]

If religion is a tool of ignorance, then wouldn't it mean that those who did not have religion were thus in some way liberated of at least one major form of ignorance?

Religion isn't a minor thing, and if you regard religion as an ignorant superstition, wouldn't it mean that those without religion would suddenly be less ignorant and better for it?

What do you mean, or haven't you thought it all out yet?

Obviously you know little to nothing about critical thinking. An absence of one thing does not entail a presence of another. Just because religion is ignorance does not make aetheism the lack of ignorance. Aetheist can be ignorant without religion, but religion in itself insists upon blind faith. Blind faith in something without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, is ignorant. Someone who is aetheist has an advantage because hopefully they will question the world and look for deeper answers beyond the stock bullshit that religions feed people. Without the thrist for knowledge, these people will be no better off.

I disagree.

An atheist can be ignorant in other things, but if he rejects the existence of the supernatural he is no longer ignorant about religion.

There are carptements that exist within thought.

[Kulturkampf]

"I think most things that are truly important defy evidence or proof.

Who really cares about the distance between the sun and the earth? Who really cares how many meters long a man can grow?

What matters is that there is a sun, there is an earth, and that there is a man. What matters is that I got into a fight and broke my nose and it made me feel masculine; what matters is that I met a girl and I fell in love; what matters is that in the summer of 1996 I got a handjob in a bathroom and it made me feel so good I came or that in the summer of 2003 I entered the US Army as a Private and it gave me a sense of both honor and fright as I went off to basic combat training. "

You are retarded aren't you? There is no other explaination. All of those things you mentioned (beyond the handjob which must have been made up) has evidence to back it up. Science isn't necessarily just measurements of lengths you dolt, it involves observation. We can observe there are people, we can observe their is Earth, a Sun, and a Moon. What we can't observe is a god, miracles, or any of the other crap religion tries to feed people.

Wow, I am wasting my time debating a child.

You are foolish.

Science can only observe things, but how can one ever observe the true emotions of a human heart that can be lockd away?

Can science read a mind?

Can science read a feeling?

It cannot, and even though it may monitor the body as closely as it wants, it will never be able to tell me what I am thinking and feeling, and my thoughts and feelings can never be measured.

I am invincible that way.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"It does not matter if I win or lose a fight, or if my face is broken and beaten down, because I am fucking living, man, fucking living!"

HEY, HOW ABOUT NOT DOING THAT TO YOURSELF ON MY TAX DOLLARS!!!

[Dole]

I am invincible that way.

try shooting yourself in the face to test this theory.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

"An atheist can be ignorant in other things, but if he rejects the existence of the supernatural he is no longer ignorant about religion."

That's basically what I claimed. Atheists have merely removed a hurdle, but they can still be ignorant.

PS. Please kill yourself.

[mburbank]

"I do not fear being hit in the face or beaten down; in the park, for fun, me and my friends beat each other up because we are skinheads, and that is what skinheads do; we drink, we fight, we bleed, and we continue to drink and then we meet again next weekend for as much of a rauccous time. "
-KrispyKreme

I don't know a lot of Skinheads, but I'm going to go way out on a limb and say you and your friends beat each other up because you are idiots.

People who don't feel alive, or at best feel more alive when they hit each other in the face are usually very drunk. They also vomit on themselves, poop in alleyways, drive into lamposts and people and other cars, stink and wet themselves. People who glorify this instead of being ashamed or at least embarassed have a personality disorder. People who see this sort of thing as being proof of 'love of life' have almost certainly been hit in the head at least once too often. It doesn't take all that much getting hit in the head to cause brain damage. Not being afraid of it is stupid. Brain damage is bad. Actively seeking out potential brain damage is stupid. Romanticizing it. You should try getting hit in the face when you are dead cold sober.

[kahljorn]

Most feelings can be scientifically understood by two means; neurological responses often resulting in the release of various chemicals that are explicitly designed to create "Feelings", and programmed neurological/psychological responses that trigger the above release(along with other related processes).

So yes, they can be explained in words and science, and it has been done before. I thought this was common knowledge among anyone who's ever argued either side of freewill. Do you not apply your logic to more than one field, do you study a philosophy and then abandon it without having learned anything from it?

[Kulturkampf]

Most feelings can be scientifically understood by two means; neurological responses often resulting in the release of various chemicals that are explicitly designed to create "Feelings", and programmed neurological/psychological responses that trigger the above release(along with other related processes).

So yes, they can be explained in words and science, and it has been done before. I thought this was common knowledge among anyone who's ever argued either side of freewill. Do you not apply your logic to more than one field, do you study a philosophy and then abandon it without having learned anything from it?

Science can observe the actions within the brain and the triggering of emotions, but can it understand a peson's emotions and the reasons whyw e think our ways and live our lives the way that we do?

[kahljorn]

Yes, i just told you. Programmed neurological responses. Just like how the response you just gave me was programmed by your experiences and, dare I say, "Knowledge". Did it come from nowhere? Did you pull it out of the asshole of God? No, it was deliberate and came from YOU.

[The One and Only...]

You know, Kulturkampf, you could just fucking box.

[Kulturkampf]

Yes, i just told you. Programmed neurological responses. Just like how the response you just gave me was programmed by your experiences and, dare I say, "Knowledge". Did it come from nowhere? Did you pull it out of the asshole of God? No, it was deliberate and came from YOU.

I think that that is a lie.

Does our brain have reactions because it is programmed by DNA and environment, or do we have a soul?

Or is our DNA our soul? I think so, maybe. I do not know.

But science does nothing for me by itself, and whether or not science can explain a rationale behind something , I do not think that languge can even explain the profound depths of... things!

And science is communicated through language, and some things are so deep they defy language and ideas...


So I think that science is helpless to describe anything significant about us. It is just observation of the physical.

the most important things to me are in my mind and my thoughts, and there is no way that they can tell what I am thinking (and even if I tell them they have to depend on my opinion).

[Spectre X]

You're such a dweeb.

[Kulturkampf]

You're such a dweeb.

Your insults make my skin burn and cold tears drip from my eyes.

http://xc8.xanga.com/358b75135913539588318/w27049172.jpg

[Spectre X]

Whatever, dweeb.

[Dr. Boogie]

So I think that science is helpless to describe anything significant about us. It is just observation of the physical.

And there is nothing significant about our physical bodies. Not the complexities of the circulatory system, not the way in which the body repairs itself, not the fact that there's over twenty feet of small intestine in the body, nothing significant at all.

[kahljorn]

"But science does nothing for me by itself, and whether or not science can explain a rationale behind something , I do not think that languge can even explain the profound depths of... things! "

Who cares, you said science can't explain feelings and it can..

"Does our brain have reactions because it is programmed by DNA and environment, or do we have a soul? "

Our brains have reactions because that is what they our designed to do for survival purposes.

"And science is communicated through language, and some things are so deep they defy language and ideas... "

Why do you keep trying to talk about them, then? Seems kind of pointless. The idea that something can be innately indescribable is ridiculous, the idea that it would be very dificult to describe it given the circumstance is a better statement.

[pjalne]

You know, Kulturkampf, you could just fucking box.

Am I the only one here who thinks this is way out of character?

Wait, I guess it's not.

Shit, I'm confused.

[Kulturkampf]

So I think that science is helpless to describe anything significant about us. It is just observation of the physical.

And there is nothing significant about our physical bodies. Not the complexities of the circulatory system, not the way in which the body repairs itself, not the fact that there's over twenty feet of small intestine in the body, nothing significant at all.

Of course it is significant, and of course there is meaning in it, but I think that the worth of things is determined by what we feel because without the inner feelings and thoughts that we have, things become empty very quickly. Exempt of real meaning and joy.

[davinxtk]

So, to recap your argument:

What matters is that I got into a fight and broke my nose and it made me feel masculine;A) You're an idiot.what matters is that I met a girl and I fell in love;B) You're a liar.what matters is that in the summer of 1996 I got a handjob in a bathroomC) See B.in the summer of 2003 I entered the US ArmyD) See A.

Additionally,

Who cares about how my nose was broken?1) Literally nobody.Who cares what the dimensions of the girl I fell in lvoe with were?2) You got a handjob from a fat chick.Who cares the size of the bathroom or the science behind sucking shit at basic combat training?3) You're bad at your job, which the majority of the people present are rather literally paying you to do.


Oh oh oh, and if you feel like doing a request:

There are carptements that exist within thought.

What the fuck is a carptement and when (http://www.search.com/search?tag=se.fd.box.main.search&q=carptement) did (http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=carptement&kgs=1&kls=0) you (http://www.ask.com/web?q=carptement&qsrc=0&o=0) first (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=carptement&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8) discover (http://www.hotbot.com/default.asp?query=carptement&ps=&loc=searchbox&tab=web&provKey=Ask+Jeeves) it (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-41,GGLG:en&q=carptements)?



I am invincible that way.
You sound like a sixth grader.

[VinceZeb]

Religion is nothing but irrational ignorance. It's depressing that we haven't yet moved beyond superstition into reason by this century.

Wow, all this religious history that has existed for tens of thousands of years and its positive influence on history has all been destroyed by one internet loser saying this quote. I'm sure the kids you serve at the local coffehouse/bookstore think you're a fucking messiah.

[Dole]

Vince, you are the best possible argument against the existence of a higher power.

[sspadowsky]

Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms


The website you have requested has been cancelled.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Sayin' what needs to be said.

oops!

[kahljorn]

" but I think that the worth of things is determined by what we feel because without the inner feelings and thoughts that we have, things become empty very quickly. Exempt of real meaning and joy."

What if we just had inner feelings and thoughts and no body!? WHAT KIND OF INTERESTING LIFE WOULD WE LIVE THEN, KULTERKAMP? OH WAIT WE WOULDN'T BE ALIVE AT ALL SO HOW WOULD YOU LOVE LIFE THEN YOU DUMB CUNT?
Your inner feelings and thoughts come as a result of your body. All this happiness happy happy joy joy bullshit you're talking about is a purely material feeling that comes as a result of your body. Why do you think real meaning comes from human emotion and human situations? Seems ridiculous considering you're investigating culturization, you should know that 90% of human situations are designed, especially the way they think and feel; if that's not the case, how could you ever take part in culturization anyway, the ability people have to emulate and adopt different belief patterns is the basis of culture. I guess you still haven't caught onto that fact despite me having posted it above.

I find it funny that you act like you understand taoist concepts and then post shit like this. Taoism is all about exposing dialectics, which is why you hear things like "Yin and Yang". "Good and bad" "Right and wrong" "Black and white" "Homosexual and stright". Taoists essentially feel that it is entirely unreal(?), and usually escape from human drama. I believe doing this is called Wu jao(thao?) or something, anyway, it translates down to "The way" and essentially involves removing yourself from human civilization according to the belief(this isn't exact) that not only can they not do anything, but if they did it would screw things up in the world and also they would postpone their own enlightenment due to playing part in the human drama.
The tao is ambigous, don't talk about any eastern culture like you understand it, you jackass.

It's funny that you try to act like feelings are so much more important than the material body. So horribly ironic. It's obvious you are just trying to appear as if you're the guy with the big heart, and it's ridiculous. Quit pretending, you're a jackass like everybody else.

nothing has real meaning or joy, my friend, everything is empty. That's why you could buy a gigantic vanilla ice cream cone and find yourself in bliss, while somebody who is lactose intolerant could find themselves quite sick(and ergo, not in bliss). You see, you attach your feelings to things you think you enjoy, it's not because the object has any innate joy associated with it, it's because YOU associated joy with it. Get it? This goes for people too, some people will like you, some people will hate you. It doesn't have anything to do with you innately, and everything to do with relativity.

[mburbank]

Vince you bastard! How dare you, HOW DARE YOU show your fce around here!?!

You break our collective E-heart and then you have the GALL to show up and make a post and vanish again!?

Go back to your submarine, homewrecker! There's a new sheriff in town and his name is KulturKampf. He's the kind of man you'll never be, and he's actually in the army, protecting our way of life, unlike you. He's all the man you pretnded to be, and none of us need you anymore.

Go away! GO AWAY OH GOD I PROMISED MYSELF I WASN'T GOING TO CRY!!!

[homoperfect]

If we were to live our lifes with emotional void I too think we would create a vast emptyness in our live. All the same, if we are to make logical attempts then we should know ourselves emough so that we understand our emotional Motives. When we take part in logic we are not voiding emotion completely, we are understanding our motives yet not letting them interfere with the fair and balanced process. If we were to let our emotions wreck havoc a civility would be lost. I can't tell you how many times I've had the urge to massacre others because of an uncouth comment or deed but It is my ability to rationalize with myself and put limits on my emotions that keeps me out of the gutter of life.

[kahljorn]

"If we were to live our lifes with emotional void I too think we would create a vast emptyness in our live."

I think this just shows how emotionally void we really are at core, that we need to attach meaning to various objects that have no innate meaning. What value do these attachments have? Usually they are worth no more than emotive response. They are purely symbols.

[homoperfect]

I personally am afraid of hights. Naturally I have a negative reaction towards planes. Emotionally I have anxiety, fear, and nervousness. When my sister was married on the west coast, In order to get to the wedding and back so I could be to work. If I had acted soley on emotion I would not have flown yet I didn't. One might say that I acted with emotion towards my sister. Then you find out she isn't blood related and I hav rarely spoken with her let alone care for her. So why go? Mind you, I'm not talking of getting rid of your emotions. what I'm speaking of is knowing thy self. Knowing what emotions you have and how they drive you. then with this knowledge act on an reasonable level by allowing your self to see beyond your emotions. In a sense you're acting with something greater in mind. It's almost like reaching into a higher power.

[kahljorn]

..Yea, "knowing thyself" and understanding what motivates you is a good thing. This topic has been brought up in passing a couple of times lately, and it's nice to see different people and sciences and whathave you investing thought into objectivity. It's my personal belief that objectivity is one of the most basic skills required to function properly in this world, especially as far as science and even politics goes for obvious reasons.
What I don't understand is that the concept of objectivity has been around for a long time, and it has been used in problem solving situations and philosophical pondering throughout the years and you would would think that theoretically it would have leaked it's way into the general populace by now through education, but it hasn't. From my basic understanding of scientific principles one of the most important things is Objectivity. This is why they make careful note of their observations, to record their individual perception and perceived results of the experiment, while attempting to retain a journal of the experience.
Why isn't this taught in school(i know they teach the scientific method, but why isn't it emphacized that it's an incredibly useful tool in real life)? I'm under the belief that learning objectivity is one of the most fundamental skills to surviving in this world. It's common sense, it's one of those few things ANYBODY can figure out and understand just by looking at the outside world. I feel that all forms of "Common sense" should be taught in school at a young age, so that our minds are already tuned to think of reality in a realistic, productive manner. This plays into my healthy citizens talk. You can't hope to have healthy, productive citizens if they are incapable of thinking properly. If people are at least capable of thinking properly I think it would help the world alot, in every facet.

Again, the theory and practice of objectivity has been around for thousands of years, many philosophers and mystics have used it over the years for the propagation of their works. It has existed since buddhism, which can be plainly seen by looking at their 8 fold path. Every single "Fold" on the path represents an aspect of objectivity. In a similar sense, so does yoga, from what I've read of eternalism it's basically a form of objectivity, most more recent psychologists even stress the importance of objectivity(or multiple "Dimensions") with their patients.
Why aren't we taught this at the age of 8, along with every other basic mannerism of the universe? Why are we raised to be so self-important that we think our outlook of the universe cannot be questioned? Smug bastards.