Postmodernism anybody?

[Newme]

What is really dangerous is herd mentality - whether it be Mormons supporting leaders stealing large sums of money from the poor, or leftists supporting killing babies and legally denying some children a mother or father - as with same sex "marriage" bs.

People act differently - more insanely - when they're part of a group than they would on their own.

"When people join crowds, they lose a sense of individualism, causing lowered inhibitions and restraints. Studies show that people in a crowd feel less guilt, experience less judgment and feel more support from their fellow deindividualized mob members. Peer pressure is a type of herd mentality."

"In a crowd, a man descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization. Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual. In a crowd, he is a barbarian."

I see this on this forum sometimes. One person says something insane - then another - then everybody's agreeing to something that if they were among others from another group - they'd never say.

[LaMachina]

Ahhh, this is the Newme I'm used to. (See other thread for the moment Newme impressed me)

All you're doing with comments like this is diminishing the individual thought and effort many people here have put in to reach their conclusions and convey them to you in thoughtful and courteous ways. Personally I haven't said anything here I wouldn't say anywhere else. If anything, an internet forum is the least likely place for people to be cowed into saying something they don't believe.

So please, if you disagree with someone, fine. Spell out why it is you disagree with them with some logic. But if they come back with reasons they disagree with you could you please, for the love of God, for the love of everything holy and beautiful, stop accusing them of being mindless, brainless, stupid zombies shambling around in herds moaning "Gaaay maaarriage" and 'Abooortion"? This is what bullies do. This is what abusers do. This is what gas-lighters do. This is what people without any good arguments do. You're better than that.

[Wonderment]

In general, this forum is an example of thoughtful, reflective, and measured writing and thinking. People who go through a faith transition often have to do much more individualized thinking to determine their own pathway than people who stay in the church and allow church officials to do their thinking for them.
I don't see the "herd mentality" here of which you speak. I really like this board because the members do practice thinking for themselves, and they write in measured, thoughtful, ( and often very humorous ) tones. -- Wndr.

[2bizE]

I have no concept of what this is. I’ve seen your other posts on this and it is over my head.

[Newme]

LaMachina, Wonderment, 2bizE,
I have put forth detailed arguments backed up by facts and statistics. That’s why I made the assertions.

Still, I didn’t mean to imply everyone or every post was based on insane herd mentality - only that I’ve seen it here, & wish so much that I didn’t.

There have been many times when we’ve supported each other through tough times - & I love that. Yet, after being bullied because I see abortion or SSM etc different from some, it’s difficult to trust & want to reach out. And some people assume everyone on this forum must be leftist - and accept the entire leftist belief package, but some of us don’t - & I wish that was ok here.

[Wonderment]

I have put forth detailed arguments backed up by facts and statistics. That’s why I made the assertions.

Ummm, No. The Family Research Council works continuously to discredit the LGBT community, and their research is neither "scientific", nor "factual." Most of their research is easily debunked.
You are certainly free to have your own feelings about the LGBT community, but if you send links about "factual" research, then I'ma probably come on here and point out the agenda of the FRC. - Wndr.

[Newme]

I have put forth detailed arguments backed up by facts and statistics. That’s why I made the assertions.

Ummm, No. The Family Research Council works continuously to discredit the LGBT community, and their research is neither "scientific", nor "factual." Most of their research is easily debunked.
You are certainly free to have your own feelings about the LGBT community, but if you send links about "factual" research, then I'ma probably come on here and point out the agenda of the FRC. - Wndr.

Sorry but you failed at your attempt to read my mind & jump to conclusions.

The facts and statistics are from nation wide gathered health reports by the United States Center for Disease Control.

Thanks for being a good case-in-point example of leftist problematic thinking.

[LaMachina]

Uhhh...is your most recent link to the Family Research Council or not? Are there not many links in here, provided by you, to organizations with obvious biases? You know, the types of biased, problematic thinking you accuse everyone of but fail to see in yourself? Seems to me no one was required to read minds or jump to conclusions ...it's right there for all to peruse.

What are the CDC's recommendations for the increased risks of sexual activity among gay men? Hint: It's not to live a celibate, lonely life. And it's certainly not to stop advocating for that "same-sex marriage bs". But keep fighting that good fight!

In the meantime please stop the dishonest language and gas-lighting, thank you!

[Newme]

LaMachina,
Please stop lying.
I’ve explained repeatedly medical risks & statistical facts of homosexual practices & I’ve explained these anal sex risks were from medical/physiology books & the stats are from the US CDC. Several links given on page 1.

I even told someone to look it up themselves - you can do it too.
You will find those facts & stats validated.
But of course, it is both the Mormon & leftist way to deny inconvenient facts.
They’d rather engage in strawman and appeal to authority logical fallacies.
Family research council may seem like an easier authority to refute but it doesn’t change the medical and statistical facts.

[wtfluff]

LaMachina,
Please stop lying.

Lying? What is this?

The most credible study done on children raised by homosexual parents reveal multiple problems statistically, including likelihood of arrest, report of unsafe & negative impact of childhood, lower educational achievement, more likely to suffer from depression, & other problems. http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexua ... f-findings

Yup. The last link you posted goes to the "Family Research Council".

I just did a fun little "look it up" on Family Research Council... Guess what the first hit is?

Try it and see. I'm interested what google tells you...

[Newme]

Wtfuff,
Try looking up homosexual agenda and “After the ball.” Or “The Overhauling of Straight America.” See how well you’ve been indoctrinated with mind control - even better than Mormonism!
Also try US CDC and homosexuality.
If you want anatomical facts regarding risks of anal sex, look up a medical book or just consider your last bowel movement.

Google is biased - considering they recently fired someone for stating facts someone didn’t like.
GOOGLE’s LIBERAL BIAS MAY BE DISTORTING YOUR RESEARCH
https://studybreaks.com/2017/05/25/google/

[LaMachina]

Sincerely Newme, I find you to be the most fascinating person on this site! I'm baffled by your stubbornness and leaps of reasoning.

If you've bothered to read any responses in this thread and others I don't think you'll find anyone who has challenged you on the fact gay sex, in particular male gay sex, carries risk. And risky lifestyles (promiscuous and unprotected sex) significantly increases that risk. I concede the point and have never challenged it anyway.

But why don't you answer questions posed to you? How do you, someone who claims to strongly believe in the right to pursue happiness, continue to rail against the rights of a group trying to pursue happiness? How does the potential for self harm in adult relationships factor in at all?

Gay people exist. They fall in love and seek to cultivate intimate relationships with those they love. Remaining celibate or cultivating relationships with people they are not attracted to or love has proven damaging. Is it as damaging as anal sex? I honestly couldn't say but I can say this:

There is plenty in this life that's potentially damaging. Just this evening I loaded up on a bunch of rich, creamy decadent ice cream. The potential damage this could cause my body far outweighs any nutrional value but I did it anyway. Any guesses why? Cuz living a life consuming only boiled spinach sucks.

So, while I would never recommend someone live recklessly I have absolutely no problem with someone living with some risk, hell even some significant risk, in order to get the most out of life.

Why do you have such a problem with it? Or maybe you're coming after my ice cream next???

So please, read up on the CDC's recommendations to gay individuals on the best ways to minimize risk. As far as I'm concerned they are the only legitimate source you've cited here among your many links. And answer my bleeping question about your conflicting and apparently inconsistent position without misrepresenting my views or strawman-ing me. If you can't I'm afraid I'm done engaging with you as, despite my repeated pleadings, you seem to be incapable of having a conversation in good faith about this subject.

[wtfluff]

Wtfuff,
Try looking up homosexual agenda and “After the ball.” Or “The Overhauling of Straight America.” See how well you’ve been indoctrinated with mind control - even better than Mormonism!
Also try US CDC and homosexuality.
If you want anatomical facts regarding risks of anal sex, look up a medical book or just consider your last bowel movement.

Google is biased - considering they recently fired someone for stating facts someone didn’t like.
GOOGLE’s LIBERAL BIAS MAY BE DISTORTING YOUR RESEARCH
https://studybreaks.com/2017/05/25/google/

I typed up a more lengthy reply, but LaMachina's is much better. I'll just agree that it would be nice if you would actually answer questions that you've been directly asked.

And as usual, I can't leave well-enough alone, so I'll ask one more question:


You know that you can use the same types of "CDC statistics" you love to quote against racial minorities also, right? Do you also promote discriminating against racial minorities due to CDC statistics?

[LaMachina]

And as usual, I can't leave well-enough alone...

I know right?? I can't explain why I continue either but it feels like I've discovered alien life or something.

[Jeffret]

Wow.

I had ignored this thread, thinking it was about post-modernism. Boy was I wrong. It's about anything but. It's about using terms, incorrect "facts", and poor reasoning as a way to attack, malign, and demean people in other groups. Nothing to do with "Support", either.

[Jeffret]

If you, ie: state inconvenient FACTS of medical/physiological differences between men and women - many, even liberal journalists freak out and demand it be censored as "hate speech."

Not at all. The reality is that most of those "facts" aren't facts. They're pseudo-scientific gibberish intended to maintain the existing power structures without regard to actual, real, substantive differences. The real differences don't cause "freak outs", only the fake ones.

In reality, the only current oppression is primarily with African Americans - and often it is because of traditions/no fathers in the home etc - not so much as racial discrimination, though media would have us believe so.

And yet, then you wander off into trying to oppress other groups, in spite of your claim here. There are tons of real studies that demonstration the problems, the discrimination, the prejudice, and the oppression. Some groups that recognize the issues adjust behaviors to try and reduce the problems. Even the current fervor, #MeToo, shows just how bad the situation is in various ways.

[Jeffret]

Overwhelming evidence has been discovered that babies are NOT born with particular sexual preferences.
Just looking at human development - babies' brains are only 1/4 developed at birth, so that they can adapt to environmental stimuli, again indicating that so much is learned or environmentally influenced.
I trust that if you're interested in actual science, you'll research it thoroughly.

"Therapists who treat men and women struggling with same-sex attractions say that there are several consistent factors that contribute to the emergence of homosexuality: gender confusion in childhood, a failure to internalize maleness, and sexual abuse by a same-sex predator. Dr. Gregory Dickson, whose doctoral thesis is on the relationship between a mother and son in the development of homosexuality, found that 49% of the homosexuals he surveyed said they had been molested, compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals. Other research confirms what therapists have known for decades: Homosexuals are made, not born. And they are frequently “made” by older men who molest them as youngsters.

God, this is just total bullshit. Nothing to do with science. Total religious, prejudiced fabrication.


Actually, straight sex is riskier than gay sex. And of course, the women are always invisible in these claims.

Also According to the United States Center for Disease Control (US CDC), those who engage in homosexual practices are more likely to have mental illness. Research also has found that, compared to other men, MSM are at increased risk of: Major depression during adolescence and adulthood; Bipolar disorder; and Generalized anxiety disorder during adolescence and adulthood. MSM are also at greater risk for other health threats that often occur in conjunction with mental health problems (i.e., co-morbidities). These include greater use of illegal drugs and a greater risk for suicide.

What a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the data and the science. Yeah, let's attack and demean this one group from the earliest age and then wonder why their rates of mental illness and risky behaviors are higher.

[Jeffret]

And it is fact that marriage is not a supreme court/constitutional issue.
It was just the lefts way of tyrannically imposing their will against the will of the voters.

Utterly ridiculous. Not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. That's exactly what the courts are for -- to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. Goes right back to "The Federalist" essays.

[Jeffret]

The most credible study done on children raised by homosexual parents reveal multiple problems statistically, including likelihood of arrest, report of unsafe & negative impact of childhood, lower educational achievement, more likely to suffer from depression, & other problems. http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexua ... f-findings

If by "credible" you mean "the study that most aligns with your preconceived prejudices, then yes, the Regnerus study is the most "credible". If by "credible" you mean how the word is most commonly used, then the Regnerus study is extremely far from credible. Somehow even before clicking your link, I knew you had to be referring to the Regnerus study. The Regnerus study is fundamentally, fatally flawed in many different ways. It's biggest flaw is that his data doesn't even begin to support the conclusions he draws from it.

The Regnerus study has been debunked by many people. Even the journal that published it has stated they should never have done so and examined their policies. In the Michigan case on gay marriage, one of only two to examine evidence and testimony, Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that Regnerus is not credible.

[Jeffret]

If it helps, here's a link to the gay agenda: https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-gay-agenda