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.
