When you don't have a leg to stand on...

Your views are offensive

Western second-world countries like Australia and the USA are rapidly inventing idiocy like never before conceived of in 6,000 years of human history.

The problem? Some politically-active groups repeatedly find that the more research mounts up, the more the facts stand against them.

The solution? Stop arguing logically, and lobby parliament for "anti-offense" laws.

That's right : you offended me, therefore you must not speak.

An official government advisory committee on homosexual issues has told the government that they want a law that prohibits people from any conduct that a 'reasonable person' "would have anticipated that the other person would feel offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed".

Hey - I think anyone whose case is so weak they need to lobby for "don't ever say anything I disagree with or else it'll offend me" laws, is either an idiot, or, to be fair, they actually know exactly what they're doing and think you're an idiot 'coz they're counting on you supporting such a ridiculous law and not complaining too much against any government that brings it in.

So, I'm offended that the homosexual lobbyists think I'm so stupid that anyone would agree with their proposed legislative changes.

And any reasonable person could have anticipated that kind of offence.

Therefore the homosexual lobby has already broken the law they proposed!!!

Idiots.

Except once again that they're not actually idiots - they know exactly what they're doing - and they're counting on you and I, the voting public, to be idiots to get their bill passed.

Of course, the fact that the Labour party is eager to bow to them brings their own collective mental capacity or else deeper agendas straight into the spotlight. But a spotlight that most will unthinkingly ignore. Yup - that's right - it seems we are a great cloud of useful idiots these lobbyists/politicians are relying on to push society further from rationality and deeper into deep irrationality.

So anyway, let's play a game : who'll get to be fined/imprisoned first once the new laws come in?

Homosexuals are nice, loving people and all that - except of course some of the very angry and violent ones evidenced in places like San Fran - and except of course that so many of them (proportionally relative to the rest of the population) wrestle deeply with mental health issues (the which at least one study has clearly shown persist regardless of the degree of societal acceptance of their chosen lifestyle) - but, hey, they're still humans, made in the image of God (an image they choose to mar), and so they still have some of God's characteristics indelibly imprinted in them - e.g. a certain degree of lovingness and niceness - so hey, it's no surprise that I quite enjoy the company of my homosexual friends (nice, friendly, loving people) - but the idea that what offends me or them must not be spoken is ridiculous beyond words.

The world's most ridiculous law

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is completely unimplementable. They'll still be enough Christians left at the passing of said stupid legislative changes that there'll be people offended by the disgusting actions of homo-peddlers in the Sydney "mardi gras". What, shall they be permitted to accuse the soddies for their evident and predictably offensive actions in public during the parade?

"Of course not - they chose to be at the parade!" some angry soddie will cry. Yes, but equally, you soddies could choose not to visit the churches from whose pulpits you might otherwise hear speech that is so hideously and unreasonably "offensive" as to suggest that you shouldn't choose the sexual practices you do.

Yet the same pro-soddie lobbyists aren't into consistency - no, why be logically consistent, when inconsistency and hypocrisy further your aims?

The Advisory group is asking the Labor movement not to give ANY exceptions for RELIGIOUS discussion of homosexuality!

They even go so far as :

They actually mention "calculated sermons" as a specific example of homophobic harassment!

So let's get this straight : I sit down to write a sermon. Now, because I happened to prepare the sermon before I step into the pulpit, this makes it a "calculated sermon". Wow - deep logic, guys. That will make about 100% of sermons in Australia calculated. What - you think e.g. politicians routinely stand up at pre-planned public meetings but have no idea what they intend to say in advance? But you find it so offensive that pastors actually think about what they're going to say in advance? Idiots you are. Oh wait - except that really you're subversive, and think we're all idiots and will go along with you without much of a whimper. Worse yet - you might be proven right. Maybe Australia is full of idiots. Useful ones, of course.

So, well, you tell me : have the laws of logic changed somewhere in the recent history of the universe? Have things like "the law of identity" and "the law of non-contradiction" been supplanted by "the law of non-offense"?

Or if it is all relative - if homosexuality is "right" today because the community supposedly accepts it, then wouldn't it be true to say that homosexuality really was actually wrong back in the 1950s? And if so, at what point did it suddenly magically change? And all those people who campaigned for homosexuality to be "accepted", at a time when it was not, wouldn't it mean that they were actually doing the "wrong" thing if indeed at the time the widespread community was opposed to homosexuality?

See, attempts to defend homosexuality on grounds of it being acceptable to the majority - i.e. on relativistic grounds - simply result in contradictions.

And attempts to defend homosexuality on absolute ground - "homosexuality is and always has been right, because it is simply right" - beg the obvious question "yeah, but who says?".

"Nature" is about the only answer they can give. "Nature" supposedly makes homosexuality right. But then, all these claims that homos are "born" that way have crumbled, living on in the zealous minds of ideologically-driven academics and in the ignorant minds of the populance whose thinking in this regard is informed only by propaganda that deliberately leaves out the strong evidence against the "my genes made me do it" theories.

Australia, 2022

So anyway, where do we get to? We get to a police state, dominated by whoever is both loudest and angriest. Oh - that would be the soddies. But that's what they want, so I suppose they'll be happy. Well, except of course for their statistically much higher rates of depression. But I'm just repeating myself...

In short? Vote no to stupidity. Vote no to political groups that entertain stupidity. If the words "truth" or "reality" or "honest enquiry" mean anything to you, then a legislatively-enforced new rule of logic "thou shalt not offend" is as offensive and obnoxious as anything that can be mentioned. It utterly stinks. It reduces society to a perpetual clash of angry claims and counter-claims, rewarding those who are easily offended and have no control over their own emotions. It punishes anyone who questions the status quo. And it abolishes any concept of legal certainty because in fact anything you do will be able to be proven to be offensive to someone somewhere.

I eat meat - oh, fine me, 'coz I offended (and could easily have predicted I would offend) our moral-crusaders opposed to the eating of meat.

I breath - oh, sorry, my carbon dioxide is contributing to your much-hated "climate change" (just threw that one in for fun :o) ).

I have any children at all - oh sorry, I could easily have seen that the growing tide of human-haters who expressly refer to human babies as "human trash" would have been offended.

In fact, the only way to avoid being able to clearly anticipate that your actions will offend someone is to hide yourself in a cloistered hole, protected from the opinions of groups you are not part of. Oh wait - that's exactly what the media wants to do - provide you that endless stream of "sanctioned" entertainment in which you may protect yourself, and from which you may form your every opinion of societal acceptability. The media, I add, which is dominated by pro-soddie agends.

And now?

Feel free to leave comments, but don't say anything I might disagree with, 'coz it'll deeply offend me and you'll be in court before the ALP even has enough time to create this free pass for soddies!!!

Or read this interesting report by Cameron Spink : Harassing the Truth.

Australian constitution article 116 is also interesting : "The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion". So if I happen to say I believe the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate, and that it portrays homosexuality as unnatural and unhealthful, and that I believe that modern scientific research clearly shows that homosexuals have far higher rates of physical and psychological health issues, and if I happen to say all this in a public seminar, someone will still claim offense. But if it is my sincerely held religious conviction, and I sincerely hold it to be confirmed also by scientific research, and I sincerely hold that part of my religious observance is to discuss topics of interest and relevance rather than just hide in a hole, then why are we entertaining a law by which parliament can prohibit the free exercise of my religion?

As I said on FaceBook regarding the religious protections in the constitution : "You'd think that would settle it. But the Greens and their bedfellows so loathe Christianity that they care not for such trifling restrictions. They've found the perfect way around it : assert a fictitious "right to non-offence" as a human right that supercedes even the constitution itself! Voila! Now we can silence those pesky Christians by requiring that they exercise their intolerable religion, _only so far as we gracious Greens deem their practice 'inoffensive'_. Clearly, giving a Christian school the right to choose Christian teachers is _terribly_ offensive - golly, what _would_ they think of next? - and so the purported "human right" to not be offended trumps the constitutional rights of the citizenry."

Also good is Common misconceptions about homosexuality - especially point six "Gays are born that way?".

Or this excerpt re genetics and homosexuality (from here):

Some assert that a gene triggers homosexuality. This view has several problems. First, the gene has not been identified, so this view is not science, but mere speculation. Secondly, statistical studies give strong evidence that homosexuality is not caused by genetics, but is influenced by environment. For example, research has shown that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their genes. In the journal Science it is reported that:

“this ... suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families" (Science, Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993).”

And as regards the claim that the statistically abysmal mental health statistics for soddies are simply due to discrimination from society, consider :

No evidence that homosexuality has ANY link to suicide rates - "A panel convened by such groups as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Psychological Association, and the American Association of Suicidology made this finding: “There is no population-based evidence that sexual orientation and suicidality are linked in some direct or indirect manner”."

and :

Homosexual suicide rates do not drop even when homosexual marriage is legal and deemed "normal" - "Studies done in the Netherlands and New Zealand, for example, where there is generally high tolerance of sexual ‘diversity,’ found the same high rates of psychological difficulties as those done elsewhere."

or read this interesting article "Just what is behind [homosexual] suicides?"

Frank Turek points out :

Lesbian activist Chai Feldbaum, who is a recess appointment by President Obama to the EEOC, recently said regarding the inevitable conflict between homosexuality and religious liberty, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” So much for tolerance. The people who say they’re fighting for tolerance are the most intolerant, totalitarian people in politics.

The final word? Sanity in the situation is evident, and evidently disregarded. Help your pollie see sense, or a soddie will rule you, and your children will never get to use the classical rules of logic.

Words, in three ideologies

Christianity

In the Christian Bible, words are portrayed as tools for distinction, analysis, communication and precision.

Despite the widespread acceptance of "white lies" amongst Christians, lies are repeatedly and without exception condemned as evil and inherently unacceptable in the canon of Scripture.

In contrast :

Socialism

To the Socialist, words are tools of social re-engineering, constantly redefined in a battle against the purported evils of history and the status quo.

Distinctions are deliberately and repeatedly blurred and new ones invented in a process designed to accomplish only one thing : introduce confusion and a loss of coherence of understanding amongst opponents and the population as a whole, until they are ready to accept the doctrines of Socialism without question.

Islam

To the Muslim, words are tools of imposing Allah's will on every human, and tools for deceiving infidels to gain advantage for Allah's supposedly holy cause.

Distinction, analysis, communication and precision are all lost when outright lies are told and celebrated in the name of taqiyaa and advancing Allah's cause.

Closing remarks

For those serious in their pursuit of Truth, an ideology that treats words with reverence and demands a standard of accuracy and truth in all its communications, is to be preferred over all others. For without clarity in word, how can there be any clarity in thought? And without clarity of thought, investigation and the pursuit of Truth is meaningless.

Moral high-ground for Bob Brown the Atheist

Moral high-ground is of course a very funny thing for an atheist to claim, and yet some do. The Greens, an Australian political party, were founded by avowed atheists, and yet in all their advertising, they claim to be standing up for what's "right".

"Right", by whose measure? It's like bulldozing a pile of dirt into a mound then climbing atop it and claiming you're king. If you invent the mound to favour you, it's easy to claim the "high ground".

But all this talk of "right" is just bovine excrement, as it were. My mound - my moral high-ground - is butchering people just for the sadistic fun of it. My actions are "right" by that standard, and I am the king of that castle.

So long Greens. Intellectually duplicitous. Moral crusaders for their own defined cause, against the obvious principle of nature : atoms have no moral value, and neither do collections of atoms, such as humans, if atheism's materialistic underpinnings are correct.

Of course, if there is a "god", as I maintain is evident, then the Greens are not merely duplicitous (aka hypocrites), but right royally stuffed. But hey - that's their choice, and who am I to deny them their right to choose?

If only they would hold the same in reverse - but they don't.

They are vehemently anti-choice, suggesting that babies be given no choice over whether they live or die, Christian business leaders be given no choice but to register with the government (presumably for "permission" to continue the pernicious pursuit of earning money whilst - horrors - holding different beliefs to the Greens) *1, suggesting that I be given no choice when it comes to questioning the unquestionable virtues of homosexual lifestyles, and the list goes on.

Greens would equal hypocrites, if it weren't for the not-so-subtle socialist undertones that permeate the party. They are, after all, only hypocrites insofar as their actions decry their public platitudes. But their public platitudes are not reflective of their core ideology. As their actions reveal, they are hell-bent on deceiving the public whilst they busily work on promoting their agenda of deep government control over pretty much everything that happens outside the four walls of your house, and much of what happens within.

So, Greens = hypocrites? No, just outright liars with a deadly agenda. So long, Greens, once more...

Footnotes :

*1 Yes, you read that right - Bob Brown issued a press release calling for all businesses owned by members of a particular religious minority to be forced to register. Kinda like forcing Greens supporters to wear a green triangle armband. Reminds me of a German who once forced a religious minority there to wear armbands with stars... And ANYONE takes this Bob Brown nuthead seriously? I'm not a fan of the particular religious group in question, but c'mon, surely requiring them to register - do you not know that that is exactly how the war against Jews started in Nazi Germany - they were merely required to register. It is completely unacceptable to anyone with any sense of decency that this kind of call can be made, when as very ably demonstrated by Senator Abetz in the following linked Hansard record, there are other APPROPRIATE courses available to be followed : Hansard - look for Senator Abetz's comments

Please disengage your brains : The Greens want your vote

I've been surprised and delightfully amused by some nauseatingly MINDLESS ads by the Greens in the leadup to the Victorian state elections.

Utilising the Google ad platform, the Greens so far have brought me two stellar pieces of education :

"Standing up for what's right, not just what's easy. Vote The Greens"

Tell me, how do you know, oh omniscient Greens, what is "right"? Oh, that's right - you were founded by an "ethicist", Peter Singer, who says it's "right" to kill babies after they're born alive and well, and says that humans have no more rights than any other lifeforms (see my satirical article The Truly Green Party).

His entire religio-philosophical system is based on a materialistic assumption that there is no god, but then he makes himself a god by telling the rest of us how to behave.

Tell me, what is "right" about him imposing his sanctimonious and entirely arbitrary views on the rest of the nation?

But the Greens don't want you to think - they just want you to "feel" good 'coz you voted for what's "right" - after all, the Greens told you so, and they would know.

And then, today's doozy :

"The Victorian Greens - My values haven't changed, my vote has. Vote VIC Greens this election."

Um... my values haven't changed? Let's get this straight : you're either insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them that they used to vote against their values (neither Labour nor Liberal is pro-infanticide, both of those parties have many committed Christians who cherish the sanctity of human life, and generally members of those parties hold that the individual human is worth more than say a bacterium), OR ELSE you're insulting the intelligence of the electorate by telling them you're really a pretty moderate party, relying on their ignorance of your deeper political agenda to win their vote.

I think the latter - you think the voters are ignorant, and you're happy to exploit that.

A charming thought really, but I don't see any other possibility - "My values haven't changed, my vote has" is an insult to the voting public whichever way you look at it.

So thanks Greens for these tid-bits. Strangely absent from your ads is any detailed appeal to reason. You're soliciting knee-jerk unthinking "feel good" votes. Yup - that's what I like to see. Not. Needless to say, you won't be getting my vote - I actually think about issues. Oh wait - that removes me from your target market. Sorry about that.

It's happening very slowly, but mainstream media and public persons are finally beginning to discuss the bloody red so-called "Green" agendas. Two recent examples :
Read the fine print on the Greens' tin - former Treasurer Peter Costello
Kevin Andrews MP takes a look at the Greens' ideology

The Truly Green Party

PRESS RELEASE

New political party : The Truly Green Party

A party that stands for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE.

No more rhetoric - just real action on real issues.

• Nature and nature's products
• Blenders
• Climate Change

I'm pleased to announce the formation of new political party that gives a real alternative for Australian voters.

The Truly Green party.

A no-nonsense platform that faces the hard issues of justice in our time : legal recognition and protection of the inherent rights of nature and nature's products.

(Note : we haven't quite yet actually completed our registration process with the Australian Electoral Commission, but that's just a simple administrative procedure. The legal requirement for registration is a minimum of 50 registered members, and we have full confidence that once the Australian public has heard our campaign platform, we will amply meet that minimum requirement with ten thousand more beside.)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE FIRST - PROTECTION OF NATURE

Legal rights can no longer be recognised as belonging to humans only. In the words of the infamous Australian Peter Singer, this is speciesism.

We must, as humans, do what is best for the greatest number of living organisms sharing with us this fragile eco-system called Earth.

Accordingly, it must be noted that bacteria outnumber humans by many millions to one, and each individual bacterium shares equal rights with our speciesistic race.

Therefore, the only proper solution that promotes the greatest benefit for the greatest number of living organisms is to kill all humans, allowing their carcasses to provide the fertile breeding grounds for tens of trillions more bacteria. By this means, the greatest possible number of living organisms will receive the greatest benefit.

Whilst various means are at our disposal to accomplish this aim, we are strictly anti-nuclear. Other weapons of mass destruction are viable considerations.

The uninformed and speciesistic bigots will decry our humane stand for justice as "extremist", but they are the true extremists, promoting beligerence of our species against those which greatly outnumber us.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE SECOND - PROTECTION OF NATURE'S PRODUCTS

Within the great scheme of Evolution arose the human mind. Despite it's startling complexity and delusion of self-direction, it's operations are purely deterministic, operating as a magnificent electromechanical machine.

Accordingly, not only the Evolution of the brain, but its operation, is entirely a product of Nature.

And tens of thousands of scientists unanimously agree that the blender is a product of the human brain. Without that ill-named characteristic of the human mind - "inventiveness" (really just a name for such incredibly complex mechanistic processes that we cannot yet fully comprehend) - without this inventiveness characteristic of the human mind, there would be no such thing as a kitchen blender, and since the mind and its operations are but a product of nature, so too is the blender.

And as a product of nature, the blender has inalienable rights.

The Truly Green Party is the only Australian political party which affords Nature's rights with due respect.

Once the Australian public has recognised the justice of our platform and entrusted us with governance of this nation, we will immediately enact laws to protect kitchen blenders from discrimination, harrassment, and abuse. Anyone found overloading their blender will be subject to fines, and those with such reprehensible disregard for nature as to torture their blenders to the point of emitting their blue smoke - that is, the very heart and essence of the blender's soul - will be imprisoned on terms comparable to such violence against fellow humans. That is, of course, until the successful implementation of policy the first.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - POLICY THE THIRD - REVERSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change - don't just stop it, reverse it!

The Truly Green Party takes climate change seriously.

A panel of tens of thousands of international scientists(*1) unanimously agree that Earth's atmosphere was very different only a few tens of hundreds of million years ago, with sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, and a great many other gasses filling the air.

Evidencing the unacceptable bigotry of our present political parties, such natural gasses are commonly referred to as "noxious", due only to purported ill effects on the human species. The Truly Green Party will promote educational policies which help correct this bigotted speciesistic view of nature. Private schools will be defunded to prevent the further spread of disinformation, as only our public schools are fit for the propogation of knowledge. Rumours of falling academic standards over recent years and decades is entirely false, or if it is true, it is certain evidence that we must take greater state control of education to ensure no-one ends up believing anything with which the Australian Government disagrees.

We have also determined, through extensive scientific research, that the atmosphere and surface of the earth were once much hotter than at present.

In the interests of preserving Nature and thereby protecting its inalienable rights, we propose the following steps to take place via timed bombs and other mechanisms after the death of the last human (vis policy the first) :

• Simultaneous worldwide lighting of all known carbon sources - oilfields, coalfields, etc - to release gasses into the atmosphere which will restore it to its former glorious state.
• Simultaneous worldwide detonation of all mined uranium (having been pre-enriched and prepared for this use). We are anti-nuclear, but in fact detonating all uranium thusly will help prevent it being misused in the hands of whatever other species might evolve in ten trillion years from now and attempt to use it against future as-yet-unimaginable creatures which will then inhabit the earth. But more importantly, the heat released from these simultaneous nuclear detonations will help return the temperature of the atmosphere to its rightful former levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE - don't vote for rhetoric, vote for action. Vote #1 the Truly Greens.

(*1) Actually, just some random dude on the internet, but we don't have any policies against outright lies or misrepresentation of facts, as neither does our nearest namesake political party, except insofar as they don't think they'll get away with it.......

Cultural superiority - if your culture ain't superior, why do you subscribe?

Racial superiority vs cultural superiority : there's a vast difference.

Culture can be changed.

Race cannot.

When it comes to cultural superiority, I do happen to hold that a culture which lets widows live is superior to one which burns its widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres.

I do hold that a culture which celebrates and protects the unborn is superior to one which kills them at a whim.

I do hold that a culture which enjoys the occasional drink is superior to one which celebrates inebriation.

I hold this and much the more.

Your culture cannot be equal to all other cultures, unless you think stupidity is equal to wisdom, ignorance is equal to enquiry, violence is equal to forgiveness, and indolence is equal to diligence.

And if your culture is not equal to all others, then it must be superior and/or inferior to some.

And thus is born the quest for perfection of culture, and a rejection of the blind faith of our age that all cultures are to be equally revered.