Posted on 02/24/2005 3:04:31 AM PST by Lindykim
BTTT
From Chapter Four:
"The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you're really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws." (Pg.88)
"I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite repesents the most serious problem facing our culture today." (Pg.94)
"Between GLSEN, the Happy Penis, Phil, and now Kami, I'd say the Gay Elite have your children as a captive audience. Whether you like it or not, they have appointed themselves your children's moral tutor." (pg.119)
Compare what Tammy Bruce has written with the following articles:
Targeting Children - How the gay movement intends to capture the next generation
Targeting Children - Part three: Activists encouraging experimentation
Targeting Children - Part four: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation
bump
ttt
BTTT
Do you have any evidence that the number of rapes, murders and kidnappings in this country is going up?
Actually, you do. First-hand testamonies (better known as "anecdoctal evidence") are of little value if you're trying to prove a greater statistical point. You argued that porn is as addictive as crack. I'm sure there are some people who believe that porn was that addictive to them, but there are also plenty of people who believe that they've been abducted by aliens. Show me a peer-reviewed article in a reputable medical journal that makes this case and you have some evidence.
In your former response you've argued against using what you've termed "anecdotal" evidence, and in your latter response you've once again called for "peer reviews". What do you believe 'peer reviews" should be based upon if not a 'body' of 'anecdotal' (firsthand knowledge) evidence? Should we accept the personal opinions of people who call themselves 'scientists"? And exactly what is science if not a learning discipline based upon observation, theory, test (of anecdotal evidence), and then more observation, etc.?
"Science" is not something peculiar to people in academia who happen to work in laboratories, etc. The next time you find yourself admiring the precision and lifelikeness of a particular piece of artwork, understand that the artist who produced it is also a 'scientist' in that he too, employs the 'scientific method'. He 'observes, theorizes, tests his theory', and then begins the process all over until at some point he has gathered together enough of what you termed 'anecdotal evidence,' but which is really that invaluable thing known as 'firsthand knowledge' and then he'll proceed with his project.
In my opinion too many Americans have become gulled by selfserving people who call themselves 'scientists' but who are nothing more than charlatans and mountebanks making use of science to empower themselves and to push their personal quackery off onto unsuspecting people who believe that they're being told something truthful .
Even Michael Crichton is exposing the quack-science being produced by quack-scientists.
In the case of your claim that porn is as addictive as crack, there is neurological and bio-chemical evidence that signifies physical addiction to crack. Brain chemistry actually changes due to addiction. If porn led to the same level of addiction, scientists could observe these results. Relying on someone's opinion that they are addicted is meaningless. "Firsthand knowledge" is nothing more than personal opinion.
Should we accept the personal opinions of people who call themselves 'scientists"?
If their opinions and conclusions are backed by objective evidence, sure.
"Science" is not something peculiar to people in academia who happen to work in laboratories, etc. The next time you find yourself admiring the precision and lifelikeness of a particular piece of artwork, understand that the artist who produced it is also a 'scientist' in that he too, employs the 'scientific method'.
Um, no. Music and art have their own defintions of "theory", but that is not the same as scientific theory. You can't compare the two.
In my opinion too many Americans have become gulled by selfserving people who call themselves 'scientists' but who are nothing more than charlatans and mountebanks making use of science to empower themselves and to push their personal quackery off onto unsuspecting people who believe that they're being told something truthful .
Okay. So, rather than rely on objective, peer-reviewed scientific studies, you'll go with anecdoctal evidence where random people tell you, based on nothing but their own personal opinions, that porn is as addictive as crack?
If what you say about the addictiveness of porn is true, there should be some scientific evidence of that.
bump
BTTT
bump
ping
BTTT
snip...If porn led to the same level of addiction, scientists could observe these results. Relying on someone's opinion that they are addicted is meaningless. "Firsthand knowledge" is nothing more than personal opinion.
All humans are afflicted by pride (self-conceit) to varying degrees.
The pride of some, as in the cases of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hussein, becomes so monstrous that it becomes diabolical. Now we all know pride exists, we can see it's outward manifestations, and all of us have been made to suffer from the
consequences of it, as with the 100,000,000 who were exterminated because of the monstrous diabolical pride of the aforementioned tyrants. We know it exists, but we cannot see it, measure it, or test it, nor do we know why any of us should be afflicted by it.
We know it exists. How? Firsthand knowledge.
Secular human/atheist/socialist scientists have become the modern atheist/agnostic/secular human/socialists version of ancient pagans shamans and high priests. And "nonintelligence bearing matter," being the "creator" of the aforementioned people, is today's version of the ancient pagan's 'wooden idols" and 'golden calves."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.