Monday, February 28, 2005

The Complementarity of the Sexes

...since I've been mentioning it some, I will prove it some. Sometimes it is rather sexy. But it is also a basic, biosocial reality that is denied by the radical egalitarianism at the root of SSM. (Same sex marriage)

Booring....but anyway, at each point of complementarity based on a hetero sort of difference within marriage there is something missing in homosexuality. First things first, you would not be reading this if not for the complementarity of the sexes. The complementarity of the sexes at the root of Romance, civilization, etc., is not something easy to deny or obfuscate.

Some things that will or may be missing,
"Involved fathers typically initiate more active play and are more tolerant of physical exploration by infants than mothers....In their efforts to encourage infant competence, mothers are generally more concerned with verbal-intellectual teaching, whereas fathers are more oriented toward active, arousing play and fostering autonomy and independence."
(Henry B. Biller, Father and Families:
Paternal Factors in Child Development,
Auburn House, Westport, Connecticut, 1993)

In a study of 42 families of young children, mothers were more likely to use indirect forms of communication such as questions, directives, and suggestions, while fathers tended to use direct forms of communications such as imperatives. Mothers in the study were found to be less direct and tried to elicit compliance and cooperation from their children. Fathers in the study offered a model of directiveness and self assertion. In measures of compliance or obedience toward their mothers and fathers, although girls did not differ in their rates of compliance to mothers and fathers, boys showed higher levels of compliance to their fathers than to their mothers.
(Thomas G. Power, Marianne McGrath, Sheryl O. Hughes, and Sarah H. Manire, "Compliance and Self-Assertion:Young Children’s Responses to Mothers Versus Fathers," Developmental Psychology, 30 (1994): 980-989)

"The author puts play in a central position in his model, as central to fathering as nurturance to mothering, and then ascribes an essential function to it, that of opening the child up to the world, as essential to development as providing a sense of security. The author presents the case that the unique aspects of father child play make positive contributions to early development."
(Do Fathers Just Want to Have Fun? Commentary on Theorizing the Father-Child Relationship
By Roggman, Lori A.)

Gender identity,
"...the security of the boy's attachment to his mother, in providing the foundation for a transitional turning to an 'other', and the mother's capacity to reflect upon and recognize her own, as well as the father's and her son's, subjectivity and maleness, are crucial in comprehending boys' 'attachment-individuation' process. Likewise, the unconscious paternal and maternal imagos and identifications of both the boy's mother and father, as well as the father's pre-oedipal relationship with his little boy and the boy's mother, are extremely significant in shaping a son's gender identity. The author argues that these early maternal (and paternal) identifications live on in every male and continue to impact the sense of maleness in a dialectical interplay throughout the life span."
(The shaping of masculinity: Revisioning boys turning
away from their mothers to construct male gender identity
By Michael J. Diamond
International Journal of Psychoanalysis
Vol 85(2), Apr 2004, pp. 359-379)

Note the issue of gender identity disorder and homosexuality, they go together. On the issue of gender identity development, there is evidence that boys resent their mom's (typically masculine) lesbian partner.

It is only in the case of homosexuality where Americans have beeen conditioned to begin to make special exceptions. Pediatricians will argue that there is "no difference" between homosexuality and heterosexuality when it comes to parenting and then they will list "special challenges" faced by gay parents. The average person also tends to believe in some cultural scripts in which homosexuality is treated as a special form of sexuality. For example, no matter how "oriented" a man is by the sexual orientation he was born with to sleep with many different women, people will not make excuses for him and the impact his promiscuity or divorce will have on his children. Yet thanks to a lot of positive emotional conditioning and the cultural creation of some patterns of memes, if the man "comes out" as gay instead of promiscuous and divorces, makes the same mess, etc., he is just being "true to himself" or some such. For otherwise, he would have been "living a lie." Are we all "living a lie" if we do not self define by and act on our sexual desires? Somehow people have come to the position of saying that their own sexual desires define what is true, ethical and moral. That is absurd. Yet that is what they are saying. Unfortunately, sexual desires do not define what is true for children, nor do they really define much of anything. They're not "who you are." They don't define your whole life. Nor will the world come to an end if you are not defined and ruled by your sexual desires.

People are coming to the position of denying basic biosocial realities and natural categories such as male and female, men and women, masculine and feminine, instead focusing on their own self-definitions, sexual desires and the like. It cannot work. (Note that even self-defined gays are still admitting to basic natural categories when they say that they are oriented only to males or females.)

A general summary of what sound research will always show,
"The attributes of mothering and fathering are inherent parts of sex differentiation that paves the way to reproduction. This is where the sociology analogy so often drawn between race and sex breaks down in the most fundamental sense. Genetic assimilation is possible through interracial mating, and we can envisage a society that is color blind. But genetic assimilation of male and female is impossible, and no society will be sex-blind."
(American Sociological Review, Vol. 49,
No.1, Feb., 1984.
Gender and Parenthood
By Alice S. Rossi :10)

In the end, I am only restating in academic terms what the electorate has already voted for again and again. Marriage....

This is just silly, or is it?

This whole censoring from your blog thing and then continuing to comment that this fellow has going. Actually, it would be rather nice if blogger had a way to link comments together so that you could just write from your own blog.

But anyway, he's running off on a tangent now, the whole SSM issue is lost. And it is lost, because he has no argument for that. It was odd that he kept failing to answer in a thread and then going to his front page to write something. Now this, a back and forth between blogs because he feels the need to censor someone pointing out some of the basic facts of life to him such as the biosocial complementarity of the sexes.

"In a response to my post on his ridiculous equation of private and public forums, mynym has taken his own already-established absurdity and raised it to a whole new level. In response to my statement that "The Constitution's free speech provision applies to governments....", he replies, "But a principle that the law is based on applies to all." But he is obviously wrong. If someone came into your home and called your wife a whore, and you threw him out of your house, would you say that you have violated the principle of free speech? Of course not."

So now his blog is "like" his house and pointing out the basic facts of life to him or calling his viewpoints ignorant and stupid is "like" coming into his house and calling his wife a whore. (This is odd writing "him" as if he doesn't read this. So I'll just say you.) You don't think that the censors at the university also have some associative arguments and victimization propaganda up their sleeves to justify their own censorship? Of course they will make the same type of arguments for their censorship, just as you make for your own. The censor never thinks that their censorship is wrong and will always provide some argument for it, typically they will be increasingly inane. You cannot even quote something and demonstrate, "This needed to be censored." Instead, you have your rationalizations, just as the Leftist university does. They have their victimization propaganda too. In fact, victimization is generally the way that the modern censor attempts to justify themselves. So you pretend or make some associative argument about how I've supposedly victimized you. If you are a Victim of having ignorant and stupid ideas refuted, then so be it. You are free to censor.

As to this analogy,
If one really must use such an analogy then it is more like Ed is waging a "culture war" from his house, he speaks from his front porch and then people walking down the street may listen or come on to his lawn to talk about his "culture war." But if someone comes along who starts disproving Ed on something then he gets a lil' upset about it all. Then he calls the police to make the person get off of his lawn. So the person goes across the street to their own house and Ed is disproven anyway.

"If someone stood up in the middle of a restaurant and began screaming out a political speech and disturbing the other diners who are just there to eat their lunch, would the restaurant owner be violating the principle of free speech by removing the offending person from his restaurant? Again, of course not."

I know, and what if two people were in a truck having a conversation. But then, they disagreed. (gasp!) They argued quite vociferously! So the owner of the truck told the passenger to get out, then they left them on the side of the road. (yikes!) What does this associative argument have to do with blogging where there is a forum specifically for writing? Pretty much nothing, but I say that if you're going to have an associative argument that evokes some emotions, one may as well have some trucks in it. Otherwise, how will the people in other associative arguments get to the restaurant to see the show?

"If someone stood up in the middle of a church service and began to call the people there stupid and ignorant because of their religious beliefs, would the church be violating the principle of free speech by having him removed for disrupting a church service? Again the answer is, of course not."

And now, your blog is like a church service! Look, I think you need to change the name of your blog from "culture war" to "I'm just a prissy lil' fella who does not like to be disturbed."

"Because all sane people....recognize that there is no principle of free speech that applies in someone else's home or business or privately owned forum. They own it, and if you choose to go there, you implicitly agree to abide by their rules."

It's really too bad, everything that Leftists touch seems to turn into censorship and attempted emotional conditioning, etc. It's the same in the university. To my fellow bloggers, do not change the blogs into this nonsense based on the principles that he is trying to set up. Rather, try to uphold the principle of free speech much better than this little fella with all his supposed victimization does. Yes, funny but true, no one is coming into his house to attack his wife or anything of the sort.

"Now here's what is so funny about this. The only person who has thus far been banned from commenting at the Panda's Thumb is Great White Wonder."

Wrong. And the thing about it is that one really cannot tell on Leftist blogs just what is going on. Perhaps they have censored all their strongest or most vociferous opposition. Blogs do give the appearance of allowing free speech, but it seems increasingly important to note that on Leftist blogs that may be just an appearance.

"If anything, we've shown far more leeway to....even to mynym himself....."

I'd like to see what you are talking about, this claim that I need "leeway." I am curious about what gives you the impulse to censor. I have some ideas about it. It seems that the same urge to merge is there in the SSM issue as in the evolution issue. And that is part of the pattern. It is a proto-Nazi pattern, thus the rumblings of and attempted justification of censorship.

"See, this is a perfect illustration of the absurdity of the argumentum ad labelum. He has labelled me a "leftist" and therefore assumed that I would support the violation of free speech through the recent campaign finance reforms. But in fact I have strongly opposed those reforms as unconstitutional in numerous posts on this blog over the last year and a half. I should also point out that even if his assumption was not completely false, it would still be a ridiculous thing to label those reforms as "leftist" given that Bush went to court during the campaign to go even further than the BCFRA did and also try to ban all soft money organizations from buying ads."

The impulse for "reform" generally came from progressives on the Left, and I did not say that you specifically, were one of them. Politics is a messy business, one that must deal in generalizations. For one who labels their blog a part of the "war" you do not seem very aware of how it is fought. Politics is generalizations, if you want to note or argue that you do not fit a pattern then that is fine with me. Ironically, this whole pattern recognition and so on is a part of the evolution debate.

All I would say of you specifically is that you have demonstrated yourself to be a radical egalitarian (or social Leftist) by taking political positions in denial of such a basic biosocial fact as the complementarity of the sexes.

I hope you understand that biosocial is a word, just like complementarity.

"But such facts are completely lost upon people like mynym, who simply are incapable of thinking beyond this simple left vs. right dichotomy. They just can't go any deeper than argument by label."

All words are labels, all types are not stereotypes....

I think you have the urge to merge. A failure to discriminate will make you indiscriminate. That Left vs. Right dichotomy is there and is a very real pattern to things. Pattern recognition, this begins to leave evolutionists behind.

"....he still insists on grouping me in with the very people I oppose?"

A hypocrite who condemns others, actually stands with them. Again, do you honestly think that the professors and the like who seek to censor do not also have emotionally based or associative arguments as to why it is all so very justified?

I appreciate that you do not fit all the way into the most radical portions of Leftism, few people do.

"Just a textbook example of how the mediocre mind gets trapped inside these false dichotomies and is incapable of extricating itself to see beyond the label."

The Right and the Left is a very real and true dichotomy. All words are labels, most based on patterns and pattern recognition and definition, they are a way to insight.

"This is of course a very common tactic among those who simply cannot help but portray themselves as persecuted martyrs."

Sheesh, have I made associative arguments that you are a Big Meanie coming into my house to call my wife a whore, etc.? Let's face facts here, you have the urge to merge. It seems that you feel that anything that may draw you up or out is victimization, like someone coming into your house or what not. Like most on the American Left these days you want to avoid definition and the discrimination that comes with words and labels. In fact, it seems that you do not know that some words exist. That's one way to avoid them, I suppose.

All I would say about you specifically is that you are a social Leftist because of the radical egalitarianism you illustrate with respect to SSM.

"And even while banning my last two trollers, Robert O'Brien and Mynym, I have also provided links to their blogs, wherein they exercise their constitutional right to speak their mind and call me names and the like."

It is just important to note when reading the Panda's Thumb and these other blogs of the Left that there is no telling what sound opposition has been censored away, given their tendency. The sad thing is that some people will assume by the fact that they have comments that the principle of free speech is adhered to.

They will no doubt object to the category of Left. What is it that keeps on slithering about in words trying to avoid all definition, anyway? Words are definition, by definition! I think they need to read some Karl Kraus. Evolutionists, they are probably too busy picking up rocks from the bottom of the sea and saying, "You know, this looks a little like that. ....Hey, maybe it came from that! ...or, well, at least has a common ancestor. Are you sure there is not some way we can merge this? Because I have the urge to merge!"

Sunday, February 27, 2005

And again.....

One might wonder what the point of Leftist censorship is if the Leftist who loses an argument reeeally seems to want to continue it anyway. He's probably still trying to think of something to say against the basic biosocial facts having to do with the complementarity of the sexes. (Or his own illiteracy in not knowing of the existence of words like complementarity? Who can say....I need to be writing parables, but I'll spare some time again. After all, here I do not have to worry about censorship, illiteracy or sniveling about writing too fast for some little fellows.)

"Come on, tell the truth. You all missed mynym, didn't you? Well let me show you his latest bit of stupidity, wherein he takes me to task for opposing censorship by a public university while banning him from leaving comments here. It seem that our favorite little halfwit still doesn't recognize the difference between a private forum and a public one."

So he's borrowing my writing against him, apparently. The problem that is left on the social Left are the nitwits who deny the spirit of the writ. They are human, all too human, almost just humus. They are those who know not the spirit of the writ, until the verse that brings their hearse. They perceive, yet do not conceive, and so only deceive. Who will exchange the conceptual for the perceptual?

He lacks principle. How will you advocate to make laws without adhering to principles?

"The Constitution's free speech provision applies to governments...."

But a principle that the law is based on applies to all.

"...not to privately owned webpages, or family homes, or even privately owned businesses."

Why even bother having a section for comments or dialogue if one only wants a monologue? He has his little yes men, that is certain. Left2Right does the same thing, and so does the Panda's Thumb, all these Leftist blogs seem to censor. This does not surprise me in the least. If these people actually had power they would rationalize censorship based on their principles and then the law would begin to reflect that. He is arguing backward, that he law comes before principles.

"This webpage, on the other hand, is privately owned. I pay for the domain name and for the web hosting. So guess what? I decide what is allowed to be posted here and what does not."

I.e., his blogs reflect the principles he upholds. Imagine that, and one of his principles is censorship on a forum in which political speech takes place. The position that social Leftists come to is the exact opposite of the Founders. They seek to protect non-speech like pornography and do away with free political speech through the latest "reforms" in campaign finance and so on.

"Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want to anyone you want at any time or place you choose."

I didn't say it did. I say that a blog based on political writings represents the writer's principles. The principle on the Left is censorship, illustrated from the Panda's Thumb to this fellow's blog too.

"It means that the government cannot restrain or punish your speech except in certain very narrowly drawn circumstances. It is perfectly legal for someone to rant and rave about how much they hate gay people, for example, and I would fight for their right to do so free from government interference."

The government is not all that censors. (Ever go to the video store and see, "The uncensored version!" Etc.) That's a silly argument. Ironically, censorship almost always seems to draw more attention to the subject than not because then people think it is worth censoring. (

"That is precisely why I oppose hate speech codes at public universities. But if you rant and rave like that at my home, I'm going to throw you out on your ass..."

It's very easy to censor these days, first you invent some Gay© People and then claim that someone hates your People. Then you are just protecting "them," you see.

I think I shall invent some Smart People and protect them from this fellow's inanity. They might illustrate the inanity of failing to see that the issue is one of principle, as that is how laws having to do with free speech get written in the first place. But I do not need to invent a group of Smart People and then claim that he hates them. I do not have any need to censor this little fella. It's the social Leftists of the universities and the blogs Left2Right, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Panda's Thumb, etc. It is a pattern right in the university itself, thanks to its Leftward tilt. That is why it is ironic that this fellow tries to set himself up to criticize the university based on legality instead of principle to avoid his own hypocrisy. That is an inversion, the principle makes for the law, not the other way around.

By the way, hatred and such judgments about intents and motivations are irrelevant, someone can love gays and still be being ignorant and stupid, while someone can hate gays and still be factually correct. Is hatred or love going to change such basic biosocial facts as the complementarity of the sexes? Nope. So why do social Leftists mainly argue about everyone's intents, motivations, supposed phobias and feeelings in general? Well, it's all really rather silly and it seems to have to do with a pattern of neurosis. But that is another issue. Suffice it to say that even if someone hates or loves(!), that will not change some basic forms of knowledge or the facts, logic or evidence on a public policy issue.

But hatred....don't you just hate that? How does that make you feel?

I feel fine, but I think this little fella will pretty consistently be trying to tell me what my feely feelings supposedly are. Hatred....or whatever he's most likely projecting at the moment. Feelings are like that, they're subjective, personal and your own more than anyone else's. You start dealing only in them and you're saying more about your subjective Self than much else.

Do I feel the same need to try to tell him what his feelings are? Nope.

That is ironic.

This fellow who censors, criticizing censorship.

"The faculty senate resolution calls on the university to "develop clear policies restricting any behavior which demeans or reduces an individual based on group affiliation or personal characteristics." This vague demand for censorship did not receive a single no vote. Read that again. In a university, an institution specifically designed for the free exchange of ideas, not one member of the faculty senate thought it would be a bad idea to restrict any speech that they viewed as "demeaning" or "reducing" an individual based on "group affiliation of personal characteristics." By this vague language, anything anyone finds insulting could be restricted."
Dispatches from the Culture Wars

He is the same fellow who begins the Kulture Kampf typical to social Leftists and then just cannot stand the war. Ironically, on his blog his own "vague demand for censorship" failed to receive a single no vote among social Leftists. Read that again. On a political blog, something specifically designed for a free exchange of ideas, not one social Leftist thought that censorship was a bad idea. Duh. That seems to be the way they are. As history shows, when they get into a position of power, a totalitarian sort of censorship seems almost certain to follow. On his own blog that patterns holds.

Why is this fellow surprised at Leftists? It is his own pattern too. I would cite his equally vague "reasons" for his own censorship, but why bother. It is quite ironic. Apparently he has his own push button issues that he becomes a censorious bigot on, just as they do. I choose that term carefully, as he seemed to be seeking to protect his own ignorance on a social issue.

(A note of update, I criticize his social Leftism and radical egalitarianism. I have not attempted to say anything about his fiscal views. On that, I would only note that the fiscal is an element of the social. There is not as much a difference between the two as one may think.)

Saturday, February 26, 2005

A blogging note, I tend to write on Into Good and Evil more than on Right2Leftists.


Friday, February 25, 2005

From Darwin to Hitler

"The Negro is far removed from the European and close to the ape through its small build, through the relatively small breadth of its skull, through its relatively long upper limbs, and further the relatively short length of the thigh....

Also the Negro is more animal, in that it gives off a disgusting odor, distorts its face in grimaces, and its voice has a harsh, grating tone."
(From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
By Richard Weikart, 2004
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan) :112)

The Conservation of Conservatism

"I agree with you that it is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country."
Thomas Jefferson to Hugh P. Taylor, October 4, 1823

Part of the Socialism in National Socialism

"The system of myriad business and trade associations organized during the Republic was maintained by the Nazis, though under the basic law of February 27, 1934, they were reorganized onthe streamlined leadership principle and put under the control of the State. All businesses were forced to become members. At the head of an incredibly complex structure was the Reich Economic chamber, whose leader was appointed by the State, and which controlled seven national economic groups, twenty-three economic chambers, one hundred chambers of industry andcommerce and the seventy chambers of handicrafts. Amidst this labyrinthine organization and all the multitude of offices and agencies of the Ministry of Economics and the Four-Year Plan and the Niagara of thousands of special decrees and laws even the most astute businessman was often lost, and special lawyers had to be employed to enable a firm to function. The graft involved in finding one’s way to key officials who could make decisions on which orders depended or in circumventing the endless rules and regulations of the government and the trade associations became in the late Thirties astronomical."
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William L. Shirer. (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :262)

Wednesday, February 23, 2005


Me in Technorati, currently...

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

About me blogs...

Right2Left is suggested reading, because it is written by a zealot, a very zealous one!

Well, not zealous enough to write much of anything else today, besides what has already been written. I'll have to work on this whole zeal thing.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Christianity in American History

"Whereas the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, refrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society; which cannot be effected without a competent provision for learned teachers, who may thereby devote their time and attention to the duty of instructing such citizens. is judged that such provision may be made by the Legislature, without counteracting the liberal principle heretofore adopted and intended to be preserved by abolishing all distinctions of pre-eminence amongst the different societies or communities of Christians."
(George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 4.
General Correspondence. 1697-1799
Virginia House of Delegates, December 24, 1784,
Bill for "Teachers of the Christian Religion")

Yeah, yeah...

"You know it's amazing. This person isn't the only one who is still citing this dated figure. Robert Knight cited it a few years ago during the Boy Scouts v. Dale case, right before Bryant Gumbel called him a "f--king idiot.""

They cannot overlook the pattern of evidence based on one dated figure. (With respect to the short life-expectancy of gay men.)

That Dale v. Boy Scouts case was one of the most patently absurd cases ever brought. For some reason the social Leftists just do not get it. Yes, if you put yourself on the side of sexual perversions mixed with judicial diktats vs. the Boy Scouts then you are going to lose elections. Yeah, surprising, yet true!

As to the figure, I can most likely update that figure. But it doesn't matter given that the social Left are some of the most censorious bigots these days. I have little use for an issue that they keep pounding their heads against an electoral wall on.

It might be interesting to discuss some of the merits, etc., in passing, politically it seems to be done. This fellow running a blog on the Kulture Kampf of the cultural left may as well give it up. Indeed, in the usual pattern of censorship, he already did give up. And now they write about their little "studies" and things that no one is there to answer, as if that proves something after censoring any opposition.

You may as well use a self-selected sample of wealthy lesbians compared to single mothers to argue that "homo"sexuality is "no different" than "hetero"sexuality. Wait a minute....they already did that. I wonder, do these little fellas even understand that the sexes are "different?"

And again...

This fellow just keeps making ignorant and stupid arguments. He makes arguments which are refuted and then says, "I did not make that argument." Then he goes back to his front page and makes the same ignorant and stupid arguments again. It seems he gets a little frustrated with it all, soon enough, so there are the sweaty little hands of the censor.

"Well mynym, I gave you a chance to actually give substantive responses, and you failed miserably, doing the same thing you did before. 9 comments in less than an hour and a half, none of them substantive."

As if your ignorant assertions are "substantive"? For one thing, I slowed down for his little blog. Another, there were ten or so nit wits commenting on the side of moral degeneracy. Yet nothing seems to make this lil' fella happy. His "balance" or "equality," is his own totalitarian control, with all his nit wits agreeing.

"You didn't engage any of the actual analysis on the various studies...."

Judge for yourself, and if you really agree with such "studies" then comment here on a free forum that does not rely on censorship. It is interesting to note that if these social Leftists ever got into power it is almost certain that they would continue their pattern of censorship, if they can get away with it. In areas that they control, like the university, they still use censorship.

"....and why the criticisms you cited don't invalidate them, you just repeated the charge of being 'agendized.'"

First I refuted them, then I noted that the reason they were wrong is because they are agendized.

"And of course, the inaccurate claim that I'm "illiterate" for pointing out that the words "agendized" and "complimentarity[sic]" don't exist."

Those are the small points that an Leftist intellectual must rely on, I suppose. But ironically, they are ignorant on that too.

Main Entry: com·ple·men·tar·i·ty
Pronunciation: "käm-pl&-(")men-'tar-&-tE, -m&n-
Function: noun: the quality or state of
being complementary

Main Entry: -ize
Function: verb suffixEtymology: Middle English -isen, from Old French -iser, from Late Latin -izare, from Greek -izein1 a (1) : cause to be or conform to or resemble : cause to be formed into (2) : subject to a (specified) action (3) : impregnate or treat or combine with b : treat like c : treat according to the method of 2 a : become : become like b : be productive in or of : engage in a (specified) activity c : adopt or spread the manner of activity or the teaching of usage The suffix -ize has been productive in English since the time of Thomas Nashe (1567-1601), who claimed credit for introducing it into English to remedy the surplus of monosyllabic words. Almost any noun or adjective can be made into a verb by adding -ize ; many technical terms are coined this way as well as verbs of ethnic derivation and verbs derived from proper names . Nashe noted in 1591 that his coinages in -ize were being complained about, and to this day new words in -ize are sure to draw critical fire.

"But I was right about that. Plug them into, which offers definitions from a dozen or so different dictionaries and it comes up snake eyes on both of them."

What a nit wit! is not as if I was planning on keeping up with a blog where he records his own stupidity and ignorance all the time. I was just having some fun with some lil' minds.

"So your entire strategy goes like this....invent words, then accuse people of being illiterate for pointing out that they're invented...."

Or a half-wit....he seems lacking in wit, one way or another.

"....quote from people on your side, then completely ignore all substantive criticism of the claims in the quotes...."

This lil' fella calls what he did "substantive"? That's pretty funny.

"...accuse everyone else of "bias" without actually pointing out any factual errors in the arguments..."

The factual and substantive errors in the "research" is doing things like comparing a self-selected sample of wealthy lesbian moms intent on using their children to make some political point (leaving out gay men altogether) to compare to poor single moms and then concluding, "Well, there's no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when it comes to parenting!" You've carefully excluded the impact of fathering from the study, that whole "hetero" part of heterosexuality.

Yes, that is substantive. And I cited the peer reviewed literature where such researchers say exactly what they are doing, to "provide lesbians with information for their custody battles."

That is agendized, even if you are too illiterate to understand the term.

"...and of course, spam the blog with as many comments as you can until they ban you."

There's ten or so people writing on his side, yet he just can't stand the truth.

"I'll stop you from dropping this insubstantial drivel on my webpage, so you can now go back to yours and puff yourself up and say, "A-ha, those socialists just can't handle the Truthtm, so they have to censor me!" Crow to your heart's content, it doesn't budge reality one little bit. Goodbye."

Hehe, those socialists just can't handle the truth. But it is best to get them to illustrate that their textual degeneracy is their moral degeneracy, which is why they must rely on censorship.

Quit being such a crybaby about it all. Now you will always know that those "studies" are agendized garbage, even if you cannot allow yourself to admit it thanks to an obstinate sort of bigotry.

Here's what this blog is for....

To go around Leftist censorship....

From here:

Yet another example of a sterling answer to a simple description of religious left and the social left, i.e. radical egalitarians.

"Sorry for the blatantly off-topic comments."

Interesting to note that you certainly will not be censored, no matter what type of personal attacks you settle on. No, as the sniveling of the "It makes me sick." walk out proves on the topic at hand, there is something more visceral at issue. It seems that radical egalitarians are going with their feeelings, all the time. They do not see what they are saying. Frankly, those here seem rather illiterate and intent on being politically correct instead of textually correct.

As I noted at the top, all any scholar has to do is say, "I'm looking past our typical presumption of radical egalitarianism to seek the truth." And at that point, he will be attacked, censored, walked out on, or there will be a series of inane comments written by mental retards. And the legal scholars so concerned with any "chilling effect" on free speech and the like in other contexts, where are they?

Perhaps they are too busy defending pedophiles and pornographers. That is the "speech" they protect.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Jefferson's Macaroni?

"Jefferson not only served his guests the best European wines, but he liked to dazzle them with delights such as ice cream, peach flambe, macaroni, and macaroons. This drawing of a macaroni machine, with the sectional view showing holes from which dough could be extruded."

(Thomas Jefferson's drawing of a macaroni machine and instructions for making pasta, ca. 1787, The Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress))

Darwin noting the pattern of Darwinian racism of his day.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
(Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles
Darwin's Dethronement of Mankind
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 21. (Autumn, 1998), p.40)

Healthcare and Science in Nazism

"To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes—as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time.....

The contribution of the actual scientific tradition to this ethos was exemplified by the quintessentially German figure of Ernst Haeckel, that formidable biologist and convert to Darwinism who combined with ardent advocacy of the Volk and romantic nationalism, racial regeneration, and anti-Semitism. He was to become what Daniel Gasman has called “Germany’s major prophet of political biology.” "
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and
the Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

"O CAPTAIN! My Captain! Our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead. "

Walt Whitman, on the untimely death of Abraham Lincoln.

Einstein, on Intelligent Design

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.

....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
cf. "The Religious Spirit of Science," in Einstein's Mein Weltbild
(Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934)