Sunday, March 06, 2005


Professor Michael Newsom of Howard University,
"No, I didn't miss the point. The employee's religious beliefs prevent him from affirming the value of gay people. I call that homophobia."

Rick Duncan,
"It sounds like your ideological beliefs prevent you from affirming the value of Christians who believe that homsexuality is a serious moral disorder. I call that Christophobia and religious bigotry."

Professor Michael Newsom of Howard University,
"Rick, you are so full of #@#$%!!!!! I am a Christian[sic], but I don't buy into your right wing #!@#$%. (I also suspect that my Catholicism[sic] is something that you can't handle.) No one on this listserv is more ideological or bigoted than you are. Anybody who disagrees with your right wing views is a bigot. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. You are a hateful bigot and a disgrace!"

Unfortunately, the second professor is the type of person writing the type of opinions found in judicial diktats.

Note the original sentiment,
"...affirming the value of gay people. I call that homophobia."

The first sentence has a sense of smarmy moral vanity to it, typical to those who engage in constructing their Gay© people. Those that they then get to protect from all the Big Meanies. The second is meant to be clinical, it is the proto-Nazi tendency to supposedly diagnose the situation in some medical, more physical sense. I.e., the person who dares disagree is being diagnosed with phobia. The proto-Nazi tendency to medicalize can get very crass and crude, very fast. The subject being medicalized is supposedly like an arachnophobe, irrational, driven by irrational fear and so probably about to crush their Gay© people's heads the same as they would a spider's.

So shew, it's a good thing the social Leftist is there to stop the Big Meanies and protect all their Gay© people! There are two things that the social Left tends to care about, their own alternative and subjective ethics and proving that they hold to them because they are smart, intelligent or downright scientific! That's the main reason that they are alternative and subjective, because the traditional and objective is often too easy to humbly admit to.

Even with the vague handwaving that the social Left makes towards their Gays© they are not terribly concerned with the welfare of people, as people. Their Gay© people serve them, to make a point about how tolerant they are, as social Leftists. Oh how the social Leftist knows what others do not, how smart they are, how ignorant the average person who sees the complementarity of the sexes is. The social Leftist blinds theirselves and cannot see the people, as people. They cannot see the people for all their Gays©. And they cannot even really see their own Gays© for their own supposed tolerance and intelligence. You can point out some of the results of the modern invention of the Gays© identity, yet they will often continue anyway. Often they will keep repeating that they know some nice Gays©, which besides proving how tolerant they are is meant to make the case against millenia of moral teachings, any concern for the general welfare, posterity, etc. If you take a rather precise inversion of the philosophy of the American founders then you may almost come to their sort of philosophy. (You're not even supposed to be looking at such things, instead of the subjective. This includes looking to yourself as a subjective subject and what your feely feelings supposedly are about things, so you will be attacked in subjective, personal ways. That subjectivity seems to be meant to cause you to stop thinking, start feeling and to begin to be ruled by your feely feelings, just as the social Leftist is.)

It seems that they are more concerned with their own feelings and their own subjective Selves more than much else. Thus there is a lack of conceptual thought and they rely on more perceptual imagery about Big Meanies, how everyone who disagrees is just like Fred Phelps, etc. All that is meant to appeal to the emotional rather than the rational. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting emotional about things. It is only important that the rational come before the emotional, that you are correct in what you get emotional or passionate about. If your arguments are just one long list of emotional appeals, emotional manipulations, associative arguments, false medicalizing, etc., then you may be getting passionate over virtually nothing for the sake of emotional conditioning.
Side note, on the philosophical framework behind a tendency of placing the emotional before the rational see:
(Hitler's Professors: ThePart of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes
Against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946)