Tuesday, March 14, 2006

I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Cat, I Did, I Did!

Amateur atheologian blogger, "Sean" from "gods4suckers has turned his rubber band gun on triablogger Ryan McReynold's review of Brokeback Mountain.

Sean's post is gods4suckers weekly "lion feed." Apparently this means that another post, argument, or position is fed to the "lion" for a quick devouring. Well, when I red it I did not see a lion, but I tawt I taw a puddy cat, I did, I did.

Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Steve Hays already took 6 of this kitty’s 9 lives. I'll take another and let any other triablogger take the rest, if he so chooses.

The furry little feline's post is anything but a representative of the king of beasts. Upon analysis it will be shown to be nothing but a paper tiger (lion?). At best it will be seen to be a cute wittle fuzzy kitty. You know, the kind that looks cute when it pretends to be a big boy by batting string. Unfortunately, it time to let the dogs out and maul this cat.

To begin I'd like to point out what a commenter on the above kibbles 'n bits post said about Triablogue and myself in particular. Lya Kahlo wrote,

"Posters from Tribalogue s**t all over Lofton’s [sic] Debunking Xianity blog. I highly suggest reading anything by Manata ( think his first name is Paul) - one needs a good belly laugh each day."

And, with that, allow me to proceed to give the Lya a good belly laugh. The first thing we should note is that Kibbles 'n Bits jump right out of the gate showing their ignorance. Sean writes,

"First up, we have a sick-ass quote from the insane, mushroom-induced ramblings of the Book of Revelations: 'And in righteousness he doth judge and make war.'"

Well, the book is called Revelation, no "s." So, John W. Loftus is called "Lofton" and the book of Revelation is called the book of "Revelations!" How's that for a belly laugh? Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Next, Sean tells us that he "hate[s] these bloggers [Triabloggers] already." And then says, "What's worse than an ignorant homophobe." Here we can see more evidence of un-believing hypocrisy. You see, it's wrong to "hate" gays, but it's okay to hate Christians. Hate is okay when you're the one hating.

Next, since Sean called the book of Revelation the book of RevelationS the I guess he's ignorant of theology and the Bible? What's worse than an ignorant theophobe?

Finally, I'd like the child molesters to post on Sean and ask him "what's worse than an ignorant pedophobe?"

As we move on in our hopes to give Lya a good belly laugh we note that Sean calls this "ignorant homophobe" a "smart one who can do backflips [sic] of twisted logic to justify his hatred of gays." So, the ignorant one is also a smart one. Well, Sean's an ignorant theophobe but he's not a "smart one." He actually a wonder of evolution: a kitten with a bird brain.

Next Sean berates Ryan and meows at the top of his voice, "It’s not a lifestyle choice, you bigot." So, it appears that Sean is under the impression that people's sexual desires are something they're born with. Thus the pedophile can tell Sean, "It's not a lifestyle choice, you bigot." Therefore we've destroyed any moral out that Sean thinks he has by saying, "Gays were born that way," unless he wants to allow pedophiles the same equal footing as homophiles?

But what reasons are given to prove that homosexuals are "born this way?" Sean writes, "It is too difficult and painful a road to take for anyone to chose it over heterosexuality. They are born that way." So, because the road is too difficult and painful that must mean that the person didn't choose it, but was born that way. Since they were born that way, it is not a moral failing. There are many responses:

i. Living the life of a Christian (I mean, really living it, that is, striving to put off sin, seeking to be sanctified in all areas of life, loving enemies, trusting in Christ above all others, etc.,) is a very difficult and painful road to take. Therefore I did not choose to be a Christian and so Sean can't hold me responsible for my actions (e.g., saying homosexuality is wrong)! Since I must have been born this way, it is not wrong for me to be "a bigot."

ii. What does "difficult" and "painful" mean here? It is "difficult" and "painful" to read Sean's writings, therefore I was "born this way?" He'd ned to define it.

iii. Pedophiles were "born that way" because who would "choose" to be a pedophile? It's difficult and painful. So, don't blame them for what they do. Even if it's not consensual (which you'd have to show how that is a non-arbitrary universal standard of morality, as well as defining "adult"), so what? They can't help it, they were born that way! It's not immoral. If you say that they need to be re-programmed (or something) then all you're doing is being arbitrary. Why don't the homosexuals need to be re-programmed? Because they're adults? Who says that matters? Sean? Sean must think that he can just assert something and that makes it morally binding.

iv. Is does not imply ought. Just because someone was "born one way" does not make it okay. Someone may be born a murderer, so should they murder? If not, then what standard does Sean use to allow some who are born one way to continue what they are doing, and others need to not do it? If he says that one doesn't harm anyone then he begs the question. Living a life in violation of God's commands, not repenting, and continuing in the same sin is most harmful! Indeed, it harms you for eternity. So, he'd need to argue in a non question begging way.

Sean then bullies his opponents by hissing, " You must be one of the people who completely deny the idea of the Kinsey Scale." Well, I don't see how the Kinsey scale proves that people are born gay, just that a majority of people should be classified as bisexuals. Also, there have been critiques leveled against the scale from both homosexual and heterosexual alike. And, even if it is proven that people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality this does not prove that homosexualism is a necessary behavior. As it stands, the honest person will admit that the data is inconclusive to prove behavior is genetic. Physical traits are genetic, but it is debatable whether behavior is. There are too many factors that can account for behavior. And, no one has found a "gay gene." But, even if it can be proven that homosexuals are born this way I have already refuted the idea that this fact makes it morally acceptable. Thus the Kinsey scale means squat to this dog.

Sean tells Ryan that he is "deluded about human nature." But the "fearsome lion" refuses to detail how, exactly. Also, what is "human nature?" Do humans, which are bags of chemicals on an evolutionary (and physicalist) view, have a "nature?" Well, maybe Sean means that Ryan is "deluded" about how humans "behave." But I think Ryan admits that humans behave in all sorts of sinful ways. Does the paper lion have anything else? Let's continue...

Sean tells us about homosexuals that the are "messed up and repressed and in pain and feel like outcasts because they come from a community that would destroy them if they knew that they were gay. They are living in fear, and living lives that are lies, like most homosexuals in human history — thanks to the bigotry of people like you." Yes, yes, Sean, this is precisely how Nambla feels! Or, if Sean's friend told him that he was in love with a 5 year old girl would Sean, "understand?" They live in fear thanks to the bigotry of people like Sean. How sad for the pedophiles. But, mark my worlds, they will become more mainstream as the foolish arguments for homosexuality prove to much!

Sean then writes that, "If you knew any gay people, you would know that many of them lead perfectly happy, comfortable, unrepressed lives, and raise happy, loving families." But I thought that they are "messed up and repressed and in pain and feel like outcasts because they come from a community that would destroy them if they knew that they were gay. They are living in fear, and living lives that are lies, like most homosexuals in human history — thanks to the bigotry of people like you." And then Sean tells us that, "Of course, they usually have to move away from fucked up placed like Brokeback Mountain in order to do this."

Now that was funny, huh Lya? You see, Sean tells us that "many" (most) of the homosexuals "lead happy and comfortable" lives but that "most" (many) of them lead "messed up and repressed lives." Which is it you puddy tat! We have a "lion" who can't even keep his thoughts straight within a few sentences!

Sean then ponders, "How can she be so forgiving, and Xians like you are so hateful? Is this what Jesus would have wanted?" No, Jesus would of wanted us to tell people that their sin was just A-okay (wink, wink). I mean, is Sean "forgiving" of child molestation? No? C'mon, is that "what Jesus would have wanted?"

Now since we neutered this cat on the issue of his critique of "ignorant homophobes" we'll proceed to maul him on the topic of abortion.

He argues against Steve who quoted NARAL:

"3) Legalizing Abortion Does Not Increase its Incidence Statistics show that women worldwide, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, seek abortions regardless of the legality of the procedure..."

And Steve responded.

"Statistics also show that wife-beaters worldwide, when faced with an unwanted wife, seek to batter or murder their spouse regardless of the legality of the procedure."

At this point Sean shows us his inability to grasp a point and refute it (or, feed it to the lion). Sean writes:

1) "What?? How is killing your wife the same as being allowed to do something about an unwanted pregnancy — especially if that pregnancy could lead to seriously fucking up your own life and the life of the (eventual) child?"

1a) As Steve notes, murder is murder. It doesn't make it okay just because you don't want the person in your life! Why could Sean not "get that?" Oh yeah, the marvel of evolution- cat with a bird brain.

2) "A husband does not have to carry his wife in his belly for 9 months and raise her and feed her,"

2a) Moms have to feed and raise their children! Horror of horrors.

2b) Many husbands have to "take care of and provide for" their wives.

2c) Parents have to feed and house their children for many years. if they become a pain can they be murdered?

3) "He in fact, in many cases, can abandon her most anytime he wants, regardless of whether she can fend for herself when he is gone. A woman cannot abandon her child after it has come to term."

3a) Why can he abandon her? That's not right. So, he begs the question.

3b) Why can't a mother abandon her child after it comes to term? Because we just made up that rule as a society? Good reason.

3c) Also, we're just animals who have evolved. Many animals abandon their weak children after they're born. Survival of the fittest, right? Why should a family care for a weak and deformed child. That will make the family weaker in its quest for survival.

3d) Women can "abandon" their children by dropping them of at the orphanage.

4) "She must deal with it in some way."

4a) How, LIKE THIS!

Next, Sean shares some autobiographical experiences. He tells us that Steve's remarks that teenage girls should need to notify their parents before getting an abortion "pissed him off on a personal level." Well, why, Mr. puddy tat?

1) "One of my first girlfriends, when she was a teenager, actually carried a baby to term..."

1a) So?

2) "and put it up for adoption completely without the knowledge of her parents (wore loose sweaters, saw the doctor clandestinely, etc. — a remarkable feat). "

2a) So? This argues against Steve, how, exactly? I mean, it's interesting 'n all, but far from what I'd call "feeding the lion." I mean, your post upset me because once when I had to read bad arguments while walking I accidentally stubbed my toe! So, am I qualified to be a "lion" now?

3) "Why? Because if they had found out about it, she would have been disowned for having premarital sex. Disowned, as a teenager. Her parents were that hardcore Xian."

3a) Oh, bravo, great reason. You know, teenagers shouldn't tell their parents that they are contemplating suicide because their parents might get mad. They shouldn't tell their parents that they want to unload a few rounds during lunch time because their parents might disown them and send them away to get help!

And, come to think of it, how is the right to be silent about killing someone justified because parents might get mad if you tell them? This is what the debate boils down to, Sean. If it's murder all your personal stories matter squat. Is begging the question a "lion of a refutation?"

4) "She did what she did because she didn’t want to have an abortion. Mainly because she thought it was a sin."

4a) She was right.

5) "It was a nightmare ordeal from start to finish and years later she was permanently haunted by what may have become of that child,"

5a) It is well attested that many women are haunted by the fact that they murdered their own baby. Especially after they get married and have other children. In fact, many of the pro-life advocates are women who had abortions. Here are some feminist horror stories and here are a couple of other ones. In fact, this is very painful for many women and the odds are that she would have been haunted, especially when she looked at the faces of her children that she did not murder. Especially when she told her children that she chopped up and/or burnt alive their little brother or sister.

6) "who almost certainly, thanks to where it came from, ended up in a pretty shi**y life, if not an orphanage until adulthood."

6a) Well, where is the argument for this "almost" certain happening? Many logicians would argue that the law of excluded middle is not certain, but Sean conjecture "almost" is? This is nothing but emotional conjecture

6b) If someone has a sh**ty life then that means we can kill them, or should have?

6c) Most people love their life, even if it's sh**ty. Ask them if they would have rather not been born and most will say that they would not have wanted that. Even if they try to be a rebel and say that they "wish they were dead" they, often enough, are lying. We have a strong desire to live. And, many would argue that life is better than no life.

6d) Herbert Hoover was an orphan. Faith Hill was an orphan. Edgar Allen Poe was also. Christopher Banks was. Moses was.

7) "she would not be haunted by the memory of what became of the fully developed child that she handed to a stranger and saw carried away from her forever."

7a) You know, she could do a bit of leg work and track down the child and see how s/he is doing, if she's that traumatized, that is. Oh, by the way, this is excellent "lion food." If Sean thinks his post is what happens when one is fed to the lions, then what does he think of Steve's and mine? Should our posts be called: Godzilla and King Kong Feed?

8) "Where is that kid today? Lying in a gutter somewhere?"

8a) Translation:

P1: If we don't know where someone is today then we should have killed them.

P2: If we don't know whether someone's lying in a gutter then we should have killed them.

P3: We don't know where "the kid" is and we don't know if he's lying in the gutter."


C1: Therefore, we should have killed s/he.

8b) I suppose that if we knew where he was and that he was doing well then she should not have killed him?

Then Sean shows what throwing someone to the lions is all about,

"Hey Steve the Righteous from Triablogue: you wanna go help him out with a sandwich for me please? You bastard."

Wow, that was a stellar refutation. Also, your projection on to Steve is interesting. Aren't you responsible for making a "bastard?" That was very manly of you. Just like a Tom cat, huh?

Lastly, Sean gives us a suggestion. It is his closing salvo and it really makes one feel as if he's been fed to the lions. Sean writes,

"I suggest that these Xian fundies take a gander at the movie The Magdalene Sisters… It will give them an idea of the woman-hating society they are trying to force upon us."

Well, thanks for the tip. I suggest you watch this movie. It will give you an idea of the child murdering culture which you've helped establish. Oh the great spoils secularism has to show for its war with Christianity. Or, are you like a Jehovah's witness? That is, you ask us to look at your literature but you refuse to look at ours? How hypocritical.

Now that was tasty! ;-)

1 comment:

  1. I read the comments to some of Sean's blogs over at God4Suckers.com. Initially a lot of LOL's, back slapping, 'way to sock it to 'em' comments. That is until the objects of his tirades (aka Paul, Evan to name a few) respond. Must be hard to LOL, slap you own back AND lick your wounds at the same time.

    You guys are an encouragement! Keep it up.