fpb

Do not read this

Feb 08, 2006 14:02

All readers are warned: if, in spite of my clear statement that what is behind the cut is offensive and contains a thoroughly unpopular attitude, you still go and read it, do not dare, afterward, write angry or offended comments or e-mails. They will be not only deleted, but replaced with appropriate comments on the absurdity of such attitudes. I ( Read more... )

catholic doctrine, sinister contemporary trends, sexual revolution, articles by others, sexual morality

Leave a comment

(The comment has been removed)

(The comment has been removed)

Can you do no better? fpb February 8 2006, 18:35:37 UTC
Half your response has no real argument at all; and what there is of argument is quite remarkably inept for such an intelligent person, and a scientist to boot. To begin with, a scientist of all people ought to feel the significance of Mr.Lee's description of the sneak-strategy of the homosexual movement - not present an argument for debate, but make it so much a part of the landscape that it comes to be accepted independently of any real value it may have. This was exactly the kind of strategy that the scientific community in the United States had to fight in the all too recent bad old days of Creationism, when a considerable amount of extreme Protestants tried to convince the court that the mere existence of a Creationist body of opinion was reason enough to grant it "equal time" in schools and colleges. The similarity of the strategies, as well as Lee's clear and convincing exposure of the leading advocate's bad faith, should have rung all sorts of alarm bells in your mind. Instead of which, you indulge in unscientific and ( ... )

Reply

Can you do no better? - continued fpb February 8 2006, 18:36:44 UTC
But what you really should have avoided is the moral equivalency argument, also known as tu quoque (in French, toi aussi). "...if you go to a heterosexual club, it's about as sordid. And it's not like heterosexuals don't read/watch porn." This is a disastrous argument for two reasons. First, it concedes the opponent's essential thrust: that bathroom-type promiscuity is bad and squalid, and that it is typical of the gay lifestyle. All you can find to say is that, well, straight people do it too. And that is the second point: that it is inherently weak. It amounts to looking to points in the "opposition" where the "opposition" is most like the accused party. Lee's point, however, is that this is typical of all the gay lifestyle: and that what should be seen in opposition to it should be the whole straight lifestyle - all the happily or unhappily married people, all the single people who live as celibates by choice or otherwise, all their main concerns in life. Are you seriously willing to say that pornography, ugly quick ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

Re: Still not fpb February 8 2006, 22:04:22 UTC
I do not have the slightest intention of taking on you on integrals, mass spectrometry, or whatever else it is that you know and I don't.

I never tackle this subject in a joking mood, because of the ferocity I know I risk rousing. I have been the object of more than one witch-hunt on the twin issues of abortion and homosexuality, and any time I publish on either of these matters I do so, literally, with clenched teeth. You evidently have no idea of the hatred I have roused in several areas of fandom, mainly if not exclusively because of these matters.

Sexual morality is natural to man, and not unknown even among homosexuals. If they could shake off the natural idea that sexual partnership should be monogamous and for life, they would be much happier. My experience, direct and indirect, is that much of the misery to be observed in homosexual circles is made by jealousy; and one hardly has to make a great deal of effort to realize that jealousy can only be instinctive - as it certainly is - if the assumption you have lain in my ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up