Donnadogsoth

Have you noticed this trend in the media for the past 10+ years, of wonky lighting to try to mute skin colour differences? Waking up is good, I do it every day myself, but what are we waking up to? There has to be a body of critical theory, a metaphysic if you will, that we can draw strength from. Random YouTube jabberers and pundits don't add up to the tidal wave of lunacy coming from the femisphere. We need direction in order to draw strength from increasing numbers

I mean we are the entertainment economy imbricated with addictive distractions for the population to spend their lives grazing upon instead of grappling with the real issues that affect their lives. Professional sports, videogames, pornography, all methods of control and pacification.

War is not the only distraction. How much brainpower is diverted from useful ends by war simulation games?

Replace "government" with "oligarchy" and I am inclined to agree.

Even if so, what argument can you make to a witting amoralist to stop being amoral?

I think we underestimate the power of the power behind them; if splintering is useful, they will be allowed to splinter, and if unification is useful, then their theorisers will cook up new bases for unity.

Re: your favourite clip: I guess the second sign he sees is just a cinematic conceit, huh? More like "Fuck and abort".

As a Christian I think God is outside of time for the sake of Aristotle's Final Cause. God needs to have perspective in order to providentially arrange the outcomes of history. He needs to know our choices, something that can't be predicted in advance in ordinary time.

Feminists, a minority, influence society. Now we're seeing feminist POC, a minority within feminism, influencing feminism. What minority is there in the feminist POC, that is influencing it? Lesbian feminist POC? Lesbian transgender feminist POC? Lesbian transgender disabled feminist POC? Who are the secret master influencers here?

Aside from it being nice to see white feminists getting served, I have two questions: (1) What's your stake in all of this? Are you a WHCCM (White Hetero Cisgender Christian Male) or ally who is feeling pinched and getting a taste of marginalisation with no end point in sight besides total subjugation by the Coloured Pansexual Transgender Secular/Muslim Feminist (CPTSMF) elite? Or what? (2) Supposing we aren't happy with the contents of this video or its like, how should any of us approach its ideas whether in media or real life? How shall we hang with regards to it--with what grouping shall we hang together, and what exactly is the grouping that we oppose? The groups that seemingly oppose us--CPTSMF--are they as dangerous as all that? Or is there another group behind the CPTSMF that we should be worried about? Or is it Feminism that's really pulling the strings here?

Copleston's A History of Philosophy was recommended to me by a friend, though I haven't located it yet. It's lengthy (11 vols), but just the first volume should prove useful in acquainting one with the important foundations that are Greek and Roman thought. The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes Plato. --A.N. Whitehead

The idea here is the maintenance of the heterosexual dynamic, whether it leads to children or not. What a married couple do to further their unity and gratification is really their private business. Though anal sex certainly blurs the sex orientation lines. Not much difference between one anus and the next. Its popularity is surely contributing to the present Western sexual overheat. Masturbation: I don't recommend it.

As I said, violating natural law is death for the human species, as our current trajectory holds.

I appreciate the arguing in good faith. It can be in short supply online. That said, Natural law prescribes the heterosexual family unit. To violate that is to violate it. Not every broken window cuts someone, but a neighbourhood of broken windows has deleterious consequences. The fact that a seduction may be easily accomplished doesn't mean seduction is a trivial act. I don't think I ever claimed homosexuality necessarily leads to abuse, but it is related to problems as noted, not the least of which is it engaging in the never-ending sexual revolution which will, in my opinion, inevitably converge on children. An interesting note from the OP link you seem to be overlooking, but which is what I am talking about: "So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall. "Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy." Reason is just a tool, it can be used for good or evil. You, unfortunately, seem to be indifferent to that fact, and have no stated goal beyond an Enlightenment-era worship of Reason for its own sake. That way lies dragons. The power of science and classical art prove the natural order ordained by God. When humanity deviates from it, the universe moves to extinguish us. God has no need of a human race that violates his law. As I wrote above, science and classical art. From these we understand there is a physical law and a mental law, a law of the human mind, which applies to the society as a whole. The principle of heterosexuality can thus be see as an artistic principle.

I ended up here because I'm interested in truth and the defense of the West. Why are you here? There's no need to clutter the debate by interposing alternate definitions of natural law from the one I am referring to. Natural law here is man's method of intersecting with the eternal law of God. It is contained in every heart but is cloudy without revelation to clear it up. Eg, Spartans loved their children, but had no authority to tell them not to leave the weaklings on the mountainside. Nor is there reason to attempt to club me into submission to your will by using mindless liberal phrases like “hate speech.” Without the Church you'd still be speaking Latin, thinking concrete was the height of technology and cheering the flambe of cultists in the Coliseum. As Rodney Stark put it, “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honour God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, that handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover those principles...These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” You can break a physical law and pay the consequence (eg walking off a precipice). So with natural (moral) law breaking it has consequences. Consider the plague of venereal diseases caused by adultery and promiscuity. Or the incipient plague of sexual impotence caused by pornography. Homosexuality is similar, as noted, and is the harbinger of even worse consequences to come, also as noted.

It violates natural law by contravening the heterosexual family unit, as I've said. The guardian of natural law is the Church. Heterosexuals are already homosexual with regards to masturbation, in a manner of thinking. To make the jump to homosexual coupling one simply substitutes the hands of someone of the same sex as oneself, for one's own. A man's skin isn't always all that different from a woman's. A man's lips are very similar to a woman's. A man's eyes can be beautiful like a woman's. So what's the big deal in making love to such a person, instead of to a woman, or being made love to by such a person, instead of a women? Vice versa for heterosexual women. Given enough brainwashing, virtually the entire population could feel compelled to identify as at least fashionably bisexual. Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't directly cause "other things" to be accepted, but the fact that something as dramatic as homosexuality has been accepted indicates that the social clay is malleable indeed.

If you accept the existence of principles, whether universal physical principles or that of the human mind, then is not everything theoretically within your purview, so long as you can do the experiment and discover it? Consider that the common deficiency laboured under by the common man with regards to understanding principle, is that he is unaware that such things exist.

Natural law. Homosexuality violates natural law. It is not the most egregious possible violation, but it does do so. As such its promotion is deleterious to society, by displacing the traditional heterosexual family unit with the "anything goes" model. Also: the hypersexuality/promiscuity, the recruitment of vulnerable heterosexuals, the disease and health problems, and the fascistic elements it welcomes (like this conversation being banned in many places online and off, hate speech laws in many countries), and the progress towards paedophilic pansexuality. My turn: do you acknowledge that if buggery can go from the worst thing in the world in 1915 to being celebrated in the streets in 2015, that, sexuo-socially speaking, anything is possible?

Do you really think the mass media, which created the current Gay-positive cultural environment, is going to stop? A hundred years ago, if you told someone there would soon be a word--"homophobia"--that would be used to silence, tar, and marginalise anyone who disagreed with the promotion and proselytisation of buggery, that would come into popular usage, they would look at you as if you were a candidate for the lunatic asylum. So it will go with paedophilia. They'll talk about "love" and "freedom" and "equality" and "kids' rights". They'll coin words like "paedophobia" and "ageism". They'll hoark up extra phlegm to spit on "tradition". And they'll point to all the other freedom struggles we've had to have in order to make everything fair and good. They'll come up with a flag, they'll have marches, they'll make strange bedfellows (no pun intended): like with the cousin-marrying Muslims, for example. There will be movies and tv shows and videogames and a cause celebre as a sympathetic paedophile is killed by wicked, retarded paedophobes. Think it can't happen? Why, because YOU are against it? What do you matter? The analogue of you that lived a hundred years ago and was aghast at the prospect of the legalisation of buggery couldn't stop "progress," so what makes you think YOU could stop it? You won't stop it, because you don't see the process.

So why not read Crafting Gay Children and consider that on the issue of Gays you might have been sold a bill of goods. A: The survival of Western civilisation

What is your agenda, mellomama, to shield yourself from criticism of the Gay agenda?

Who does not have an agenda? You are being silly. If you are actually interested in an alternate viewpoint to the Gay=100%positive movement which squats upon the body of contemporary Western politic, you will be able to muster the small amount of filtering effort needed to look through the Creating Gay Children report and find the relevant stats and quotes by the original sources. What is next to legalise, snapdragon? Incest, or polygamy?

That's survival as apes, shirgall, which I already touched on. To survive as a species beyond the level of the apes, to survive as a civilisation, is another matter, which requires understanding.

Survival right now, as humans demands understanding. Survival as apes requires nothing but an indifference to the reduction of hominid population to less than ten millions.

Human survival mandates we understand our nature in order to advance it. Our nature as a species is not the eagle-like survival of the fittest, as such, it is man as a colony organism like coral or the ants. That this appears to contradict our urge towards individual happiness is a paradox that must be solved if a sound futuristic civilisation is to be established. We must have a predominance of cooperation so that our species-level goals can be achieved (Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, lunar helium-3 mining, fusion power, planetary engineering), but we must also be aware that industry, commerce, and culture can deaden and crush the individual, begging the question of what all this species-survival is really for.