Category: POP culture
Gay intolerance tarnishes Obama inaugural pick
Written by Chad Phillips
Thursday, 18 December 2008 19:49
1 Comment

An article from the AP today reported that gays are up in arms over Obama's pick of popular evangelical minister, Rick Warren.

FROM THE AP: "The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance." Emphasis mine.

This is outrageous for a couple of reasons. Take their definition of intolerance. For them, if you do anything which they find offensive you're being intolerant. Yet, they have no problem whatsoever with offending others and thus, by their own definition, being intolerant themselves. What a bunch of hypocrites. It seems that the only ones who have a right to be intolerant of anything are the gays mentioned in this article. They are the epitome of intolerance and are modeling it perfectly with their whining about Rick Warren.

Someone should get these people a dictionary and point out that you can't even be tolerant of someone unless you disagree with them. Do they disagree with Warren? Yes. Do they disagree with Obama for picking him to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? Yes. Okay then, why in God's name can't they take their own hollow advice and be tolerant of the man? To quote from my good friend, Ron McClure Jr., "This is dumb."

They also feel that because Obama has done this, it means they (the gays) have no stake in the Obama presidency.

Well, I hate to ruin your day gay extremists (you'll have to find something else to bitch about…shouldn't be a problem, though), but anyone with an ounce of reason knows that President-elect Obama is a special interests sympathizer par excellence. The fact that he picked an anti-special interests guy to deliver the invocation means nothing from a legislative point of view. Get a clue people; he's still a neoliberal and will legislate as such.

 
Objectivity is impossible
Written by Chad Phillips
Wednesday, 15 October 2008 16:29
7 Comments

No one has objectivity. I'm paraphrasing a dear friend of mine's view that people can't be objective because their brain function as well as their experience clouds their perception of reality.

The subject of objectivity came up in passing as my friend and I were discussing brain function and its corresponding software. I don't share my friend's view about objectivity, but I decided not to press the point to hard, mostly because we've covered this ground before. Having reached an impasse on the subject of objectivity, we both have an inability to understand one another's point of view. He thinks (objectively BTW) I'm stuck in old outmoded ways of thinking; I think he's just being illogical and has failed to notice he has sawed off the branch he is sitting on epistemologically.

But I felt like writing about it not only because I believe I have something to say with regard to the objectivity of human beings, but because I know my good friend's view is the reigning champion in our culture. It is (with all due respect to him) an absurd notion–absurd because it's illogical and because people who hold this view don't practice what they preach. We may say we believe humans are without objectivity. However, in our actions we say something else. And the irony is that while we are doing this we are seemingly unaware of our unintended hypocrisy.

For example, my friend states as incontrovertible fact we can't be objective. Yet his statement illustrates exactly the thing he claims is impossible. If all our assessments are tainted at their source (see Freud) , then that would have to mean even my dear friend's view that people can't be objective is also tainted, and thus not worthy of belief. His view also commits suicide since the statement itself contradicts the very thing it claims as fact, truth, etc.

It also means that the information my friend and I choose to act on is spurious as well. Or rather, how we interpret the information is flawed. In this particular case, we were discussing the findings of the noted psychologist Daniel G. Amen. We both believe that Dr. Amen's findings in his area of expertise are correct, that he is on the cutting edge of his discipline. Are we being objective when we make that assessment? Moreover, are Dr. Amen's conclusions worthy of belief since he also is a human being and thus suffers from tainted objectivity? I'm being facetious, obviously, but you can see the trap here. Those who say we are "incapable of objectivity" disprove their assertion every time they make the statement. They inadvertently prove the very point they are attempting to refute.

Want to stir up a hornet's nest? Next time you hear someone say, "Objectivity is impossible," "There are no absolutes," or some other such nonsense, simply respond with these three words: "Are you sure?" If they say, "yes," and believe me, 90% of the people you talk to will, then you can say, "You're quite right. The truth is incontrovertible. I'm glad you agree with me that human beings can be objective after all."

 
Father’s Day in the UK: A Gay Olde Time
Written by Troglodad
Friday, 23 May 2008 16:41
No Comments

Ah, those wacky Brits. They sure come up with some weird ideas, like how kids shouldn't be encouraged to eat cheese.

But now the Brits have truly outdone themselves. They have OFFICIALLY declared kids don't need a dad.

"Single women and lesbian couples won landmark parental rights last night as MPs voted to remove the requirement that fertility clinics consider a child’s need for a father."

Oh, that's so nice. Dads already get no respect. All the "parenting" magazines portray dads as nincompoops barely capable of changing diapers. And Father's Day? It's a pale imitation of Mother's Day- or to put it in College exam terms: Father's Day is to Mother's Day as Kwanza is to Christmas.

Well, I hope all the lesbian couples in the UK live au naturale. Because what are they gonna do when their fatherless kids flush Hotwheels down the toilet? Who are they gonna call? When was the last time you saw a girl plumber?

Gay marriage is one thing, but declaring that fathers are unnecessary is no different from claiming blacks are unnecessary. Where one is racist, the other is sexist with both examples singling people out as unnecessary strictly on the basis of biology.

Did they say that mothers are unnecessary? Why not? Sure, sure, there are plenty of single moms out there. But, NEWSFLASH! There are plenty of single dads. Obviously, if it takes a man and a woman to make a child, there's a reason for it. God intended there to be one of each gender present in the child's life. Of course, the global-warming, tree-hugging, Darwinists will sneer and say God is a patriarchal concept.

But even Darwinists have to admit that in the primate world, males are more powerful and the females have to do what they “say.” So either way, Dads rule.