Wednesday, November 27, 2019

The chicken or the egg?

In my last post, I included a link to this article:

Same-sex experiences are on the rise

This doesn't affect me directly, as I'm married with a child. However, it does activate my intellectual curiosity.

What came first? Was being gay or bi always bubbling under the surface for everyone for millennia, and now finally being given its free pass by society? Or has the constant and deliberate exposure to same-sex sexual behavior in all forms of media for thirty years actually produced more same-sex sexual behavior?

Just like the broader debate about nature versus nurture in general human behavior, there has been much discourse for the last thirty years about whether or not being gay is genetic (born this way) or environmental (chose this lifestyle).

There are the two basic camps, with a little mixing of the two by more moderate speculators. However, due to the news and media 'campaign' I identified in the last post, whose tactics were literally lifted directly out of "The Overhauling of Straight America," published in 1987, one may reasonably wonder if environment isn't more of an influence than previously agreed upon.

There is an obvious response to this conjecture by the nature camp: all these additional numbers of people who are identifying as gay or bi always were anyway, but they were previously denying it out of fear.

To this, the nurture crowd could fire back: isn't it conventional wisdom to assume that if a person is raised in a Christian or Muslim household, he or she will usually become a Christian or a Muslim, due to indoctrination? Therefore being gay is most likely a result of environmental influences.

As with many controversial issues, at the end of the day, everyone seems to simply return to their original opinions.

In the case of the expressed sexuality of the general population, the advantages of being a same-sex enthusiast are obvious to denizens of YouTube. They consist of social media and entertainment industry clout, the concept of being completely free as opposed to the reality of being subject to a different set of restrictions than straight people, and allegedly fabulous fashion sense.

The key disadvantage has remained static through the ages:

Elective infertility, which is to say, the willful cessation of one's biological destiny as tab A or slot B.

While it's easier for a deliberately childless person to dismiss the value of having children, the truth for myself and most (not all) people I've talked to, is that the act of one's child being born completely changes the game forever.

It is so much more than biological imperative. It is beautiful, miraculous and perfect.

When I was a single man, which I was for most of my adult life so far, sex was a self-gratifying pastime. I was seeking love, but due to choosing inadequate partners, it would always devolve into a selfish exchange. I played just as much of a part in the selfishness, so I'm certainly not blaming the result solely on the other person. It was mutually agreed selfishness.

Getting married to my wife was the beginning of my transformation. It started me on the journey of what most would consider genuine love, which is typically characterized by the desire to put someone else in front of one's own selfish concerns.

My son being born was the next step. His birth was unlike anything else I'd ever experienced or witnessed in my life. It was equal parts amazing, impossible, intimidating, exhilarating, gratifying and humbling.

My experience was not unique in this regard. If you've never had children, just speak to people you know who have, and who have a tendency to speak honestly, and you will find their descriptions of the event are similar or the same.

There is great mystery tied into the whole family structure. In addition to the miracles of gestation and birth, there is the mystery known as "one flesh" referred to in the Bible.

It's the 21st century and we've amassed a great deal of scientific and other knowledge. Yet we still don't understand how a man and a woman specifically, when married, spiritually and physically joined together in love, could possibly become one flesh, or put another way, one entity.

Is it just some archaic mystical reference with no significance nor substantiation? Like the rest of our contentious landscape, the one flesh mystery either inspires or amuses.

Coming back to the original question, is it nature or nurture for same-sex sexual behavior?

Regardless of your individual answer, there's one thing you can be sure about.

The result isn't sunshine and rainbows, no matter how many times you are inundated with that message.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

These two angels walk into a city...

In the last five years I have seen things happening that thirty years ago would have sounded preposterous. If people had predicted these radical changes to our collective ethos and morality, I would have laughed in their faces.

Once upon a time, two angels walked to a city to see for themselves what was going on within it.

When they got there, they had intended to spend the night with the citizens in the downtown area, but one very insistent man invited them to his house, so they went with the man.

The man and his family were very hospitable, and the angels talked with the man into the wee hours.

They asked many questions of the man, and the man answered as well as he could.

The man said that originally, the city was a wondrous place, where the people were free to do and think as they wished. They had at one point decided to trade a king for a president, and championed the idea that the people should be in control of their own fates, instead of being subject to the whims of a single entity or group.

Their city's culture slowly, through time, abolished slavery, gave women the vote, took away restrictions from minority populations, and achieved wealth beyond that of any neighboring cities. They conquered hunger, disease and war. They had forged a truly great city.

However, there was one tiny GROUP that felt it was still getting a raw deal. Even though they already achieved equality in their working lives, as well as their social circles, and many of them were very successful, they still felt like second class citizens because their private sexual practices were seen by most of the population as strange and undesirable behavior.

It didn't matter that the vast majority of the population believed in live and let live, and that what went on in someone's bedroom was their own business. Just knowing that most other people found their sexual behavior distasteful made this GROUP indignant and angry.

So they began a campaign to change the public's opinion about their private sexual practices.

At first, this GROUP, which had many members in the entertainment sector, began trying to be seen and heard as much as possible, but with absolutely no shocking or blatant exposure to their private sexual behavior. This was done on purpose, as well as never mentioning anything about their rights. Often their appearances in entertainment were amusing or ridiculous, but the point was the appearances were more and more frequent, in order to desensitize people and get them exposed as much as possible to members of the GROUP.

Next, they made sure that in entertainment and news, they were seen as victims. They found a doctor who said he had proof that they were born with their sexual preferences, thereby making them not only victims of society's prejudice, but also victims of fate. That same doctor's findings were later proven to be false, but the acceptance it produced for the GROUP members was already established.

The members of the GROUP that were a part of perverted organizations that liked to include children in their sexual practices were deliberately left out and never mentioned, lest the city slip back into its default position of seeing them as deviant in private. They couldn't afford to be connected to child molesters who unfortunately happened to also be members of their GROUP.

Next the GROUP made sure to remind the city that there were many great citizens who were members of their GROUP, in order to persuade the average citizen that their GROUP was capable of wonderful things, thus again helping to remove the stigma attached to their private sexual practices by association.

Things seemed to be going well for the GROUP. Their strategies were working.

The next step was to run ads and produce stories and entertainment that recast the mainstream character's sense of pride and comfort in traditional values as an unacceptable fear and hatred of the GROUP. In this way, they sought to vilify the mainstream and make anyone look like a monster who openly expressed disagreement with the GROUP's private practices.

They deliberately chose the fringe of the city to feature in their presentations. They featured angry, hateful people, and made it look as though everyone who didn't approve of the GROUP's private sexual practices were frothing at the mouth and terrible bigots who should be shunned by reasonable people. In this way they could produce shame in the mainstream and a willingness to repent from crimes that mainstream individuals rarely ever committed.

Philosophical differences regarding a religious ceremony were characterized as hate , hate, hate.

In order to get more exposure, the GROUP had many quiet backroom liaisons with news people and entertainment moguls. In doing so, they managed to produce and publish all kinds of positive messages, often with their GROUP's name at the bottom, in order to associate their GROUP with worthy causes. This way they helped lessen mainstream resistance to the GROUP's private sexual practices by association.

Examples of this advertising were:



Next they used public elections as another means to desensitize and familiarize. They would run symbolic candidates from their GROUP for every public position in the city. This was so they could run ads for their candidates, and demand equal time in a fair election. The ads would be openly featuring the fact that they were members of their GROUP, and then even if they pulled their candidates right before election time, they could still achieve the mainstream exposure they were seeking, without risking the negative publicity of potentially not winning the seats.

Now that their GROUP's exposure was more common, they began to put pressure on the entertainment sector to start featuring more of them in their productions, lest the producers appear to be bigots. Each decade the amount of featured characters grew exponentially. Many ads were designed to mimic the sentiments of religious ads, but using the GROUP's members instead of religious people.

They made clever ads about family harmony and understanding, and made sure that their GROUP was given credit for the ads. Many companies, who wanted to remain competitive and realized they were missing out on a potentially lucrative market, published ads tailored for the GROUP, in the GROUP's publications first, then later in mainstream publications (coded to appeal to the GROUP members without getting the public's attention), then finally completely openly about the GROUP in mainstream publications.

At this point, the city had become so familiar with the GROUP's existence and ubiquity in advertising, news and entertainment, the GROUP then started running more obvious ads, such as testimonials from GROUP members who love their families, maintain long term relationships, and as far as they could tell, they had always been a member of the GROUP and were born that way (they didn't choose to be a member).

They produced ads that depicted teenage GROUP members as depressed victims of bigotry and cruelty, to generate more sympathy for the GROUP.

They produced content that switched the pro/dissenting positions, so that the person in the ad being discriminated against was not a member of the GROUP, but was going through discrimination that the GROUP was believed to go through. In this way they turned the emotional tables and made the mainstream imagine how they wanted them to perceive the GROUP.

They produced ads where they featured an offensively angry and hateful person railing against the GROUP, and when the audience sees who is being railed at, it's a deliberately innocuous and innocent looking bunch of members of the GROUP. This was a very effective method to plant the seed that dissenters to the GROUP's private activities were mean, nasty and unacceptable people.

Through time and relentless efforts, the GROUP managed to convince the city that it was evil to find the GROUP's private sexual behavior distasteful.

That's when things started to truly go south.

The GROUP's more politically active members passed all kinds of legislation, their legal bulldogs filed all kinds of lawsuits, and their governmental arms injected all kinds of propaganda into their schools, temples and every other quarter of the public sector.

More and more people started to question their own sexuality, because it was wrong to judge others, and if it's okay for the original GROUP to do those things in private, then why not people who never before identified with the GROUP?

The birth rate of the city started to decline, while the birth rates of neighboring cities increased, as they were not dealing with the same issues.

Due to exposure to sexual concepts very early in school, children started to experiment sooner, and grew more confused about their own genders in a way that rarely occurred before. Most of the doctors in the city, fearing the loss of their careers via the rage mob, endorsed and encouraged very young children, who were nowhere near puberty, to start taking puberty blockers, thus permanently altering what would have been the children's natural course of development.

Any concerned parents who resisted the state-sanctioned hormone treatments were brought up on charges of bigotry, hate and child abuse, and their children were taken away to become wards of the state.

The GROUP incited public rage mobs to put pressure on businesses that donated money to religious charities. The businesses began capitulating to the GROUP's demands, out of fear of losing money. The charities were publicly vilified as being anti-GROUP, when in fact their policies were based on their religious beliefs, and those religious beliefs did not prevent the charities from helping anyone who needed it, regardless to what group anyone belonged.

And finally... in addition to tolerance, acceptance, equality and education, the GROUP began demanding participation.

This is when the dissenters (who were still in the majority, though forced to remain dissenters in secret) shrank back and allowed the GROUP, which literally comprised only 4 to 8 percent of the city's population, to take over the city. The citizens of the city bent the knee, and the GROUP took advantage of this magnanimous response and began demanding citizens to celebrate the GROUP's private behavior.

If a citizen declined to participate, he or she was accused of bigotry, discrimination and fascism, thus ruining his or her reputation, risking legal repercussions, and experiencing coercion through public rage mobs that sought to make the individual compromise his or her personal beliefs in favor of the GROUP.

Not too long after that, promotion of the GROUP's private behavior became mandatory.

When the angels had heard enough from the man, they understood that their job was necessary, because while differences in ideologies were allowed, it was not acceptable to force others to do something God said not to do. Around that time, there was a pounding at the man's front door.

A large crowd of members of the GROUP had surrounded the man's house.

They shouted at the man to send the two men outside (they didn't realize the two men were actually angels). They wanted to take the two angels and practice their private sexual activities on them.

The man strenuously begged them to not do such a thing to his guests.

The GROUP was furious, and the raging mob yelled at the man:

"We let you live here and you are judging us? Now we're going to do worse to you than we were going to do to those two men!"

Just then the two angels grabbed the man and pulled him back inside the house. They blinded the GROUP outside the house so that they grew tired of looking for the man's front door.

Most of you know the rest of the story.

How many of you realized from the beginning of the story that it was the ancient city of Sodom and not modern day western civilization?

As I said at the start:

In the last five years I have seen things happening that thirty years ago would have sounded preposterous. If people had predicted these radical changes to our collective ethos and morality, I would have laughed in their faces.

No one's laughing now.

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress.... Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.... The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished.... Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory.... All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.... We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.... Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
 ---Michael Swift Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987 (The same year the article "The Overhauling of Straight America" was published by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill)

Thursday, November 21, 2019

LGBTQ sword, part 2

As an addendum to the post I made just previous to this one, take a look at the following two web pages:

The Overhauling of Straight America

That article was published in 1987, and has served as an effective playbook for the various gay lobby organizations that have been very active in politics and media for the past 32 years. If you look at it closely, you will find strategies that are manipulative and repugnant, and they indicate more than once that the vilification of dissenters is required to lift up their own group. The authors actually admit in the article that the methods outlined are dishonest and fraudulent, but they apparently think that 'by any means necessary' is acceptable in their case.

Next, take a look at this article, which was published in the summer of 2016, three years before the recent Chick-fil-A capitulation due to pressure from GLAAD and other branches of the gay lobby:

We Have Been Warned

When that was written, many people likely dismissed it as alarmist, and trusted that the benevolent champions of the LGBTQ cause would take the high road. Why wouldn't they take the high road, when they speak so strongly for fair and kind treatment for LGBTQ people?

It's possible that originally, all the gay rights lobby wanted was to be treated with respect. That reality has been established for quite some time; all of the 21st century at least. However, that is no longer the goal, the bar has been moved yet again. Now the goal has moved beyond acceptance to compulsory celebration, including public school indoctrination of young children to concepts they are too young to properly process, according to many concerned pediatricians. Here is one of them.

The troubling thing about the process by which LGBTQ activist goals have been achieved is that dissenting opinions are now punished if not changed. Somewhere along the line, the people in charge of gay rights activism forgot that you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. They were not content with just the previous propaganda techniques of making dissenters look like bigoted monsters. Now they use political pressure to drive businesses to bankruptcy if they don't jump on board the gay bandwagon.

Where will all this go? Depends on what you think is important.

After all, if a person doesn't believe God exists, then why would he or she care about someone's freedom of religion? If the public thinks religious people are all a bunch of bigoted neanderthals, who will care if their livelihoods are taken away?

According to Jesus, those who give mercy will get mercy in return. Perhaps the LGBTQ organizations should consider the consequences of treating others so poorly.

Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Chick-fil-A has fallen to the LGBTQ sword

On November 18th, 2019, Chick-fil-A officially ended donations to the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) charities.

Chick-Fil-A Caves to the Rage Mob

Why did they do this?

Chick-fil-A has been successfully blocked from expansion to San Antonio and Buffalo, and might potentially be blocked from Boston, San Francisco and Chicago. How were they blocked? Politicians, pressured by LGBTQ activists, have decided that donating to Christian charities is "anti-LGBTQ behavior."

Allegedly, both the Salvation Army and the FCA hate gays.

And how do they hate them?

The Salvation Army encourages any homosexuals they assist to practice celibacy, and the FCA asks their leaders to sign a purity agreement, committing themselves to avoid homosexuality and sex outside of marriage.

Both of the above actions are based on the Christian (religious) beliefs of the charitable organizations, which include traditional views of human sexuality. The Salvation Army does not refuse anyone assistance if they are a member of any LGBTQ group. The FCA has no directive whatsoever in any part of its organization to discriminate against or harm any member of an LGBTQ group.

Never mind that the Salvation Army provides relief and assistance to 23 million people a year, including LGBTQ persons, and may actually be the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ community. Never mind that the FCA provides help for sports camps and school programs for inner city youth.

This is about a lot more than a deliberately mistaken perception of the charities that Chick-fil-A no longer donates to.

It's not about seeking tolerance, acceptance, nor equality.

It's about vilifying Christianity and attempting to make the world think that Christians are despicable hypocrites who hate gay people and are ruining society with their uptight, fascist beliefs.

So why would the LGBTQ activists (and their supportive constituents) want to accomplish that goal?

Because they're trying to get rid of the Judaeo-Christian God in the public square. See, that particular God is a bit of a pest for them, because despite many misguided attempts to rewrite or cast the Bible as hateful ignorant propaganda, they just can't seem to stamp out the light that shines in every man, woman and child who respects the Lord.

And make no mistake. The loving, all-inclusive, all-tolerant LGBTQ lobby hates that light. Light destroys darkness. Human beings, both gay and straight, love to live in the dark. Sin respects no gender, color, bank account, sexual preference or belief system. Sin lies in wait for you, not the other way around. And sin, foolishly considered by many to be outmoded, is relentless. No one escapes it.

Yes, there are people who call themselves Christians and hold up signs that say "God hates fags." But be wise instead of vindictive: in all groups there are hypocrites and self-righteous individuals, and Christians, being human like everyone else, are just as subject to those sins as any other section of the population. But same as criminals, the sign holders are the significantly tiny minority of the entire group.

Don't ask me how God feels about homosexuals. I can't pretend to know the mind of God. All I'm qualified to comment, based on the Bible and my reading of it, is that God loves all human beings, and homosexuality is no different than sex before marriage in terms of sin status. That would mean heterosexuals who have sex before marriage are the same as homosexuals in regard to sin. We all sin.

Here. Let me repeat that, lest you feel the urge to fire up the rage mob.

I said we all sin. There are so many sins, so many ways to disappoint God. Just why some people are hyper-focused on homosexuality I'm not sure. It's not as common as looking at pornography, for example. It's not as hidden as people who steal things large and small and don't get caught. It's not considered anywhere near as heinous a sin as murder, or molesting children. It doesn't have the same obvious fallout of an alcohol, drug or gambling addiction. It may or may not be as seemingly innocuous as eating pork.

You want to get mad at someone because they think that something you do or enjoy is a sin? Grow up. People have been calling alcohol, recreational drugs, sex before marriage, adultery and gambling sins for as long as those activities have existed. Those activities hold various degrees of enjoyment for many people, and if consenting adults want to do something alone or together and not force anyone else to partake, that's their business. It would become logistically bothersome for someone who liked to buy lottery tickets to concern himself or herself with every single person who thought gambling was a sin.

I mean really. What difference does it make to a non-believer if Christians think sex before marriage is a sin? Their belief only affects their decisions in their own lives. Someone who doesn't share Christian beliefs is free to have sex with a thousand people if he or she wants to. So why hate the Christian who thinks it's wrong? It's not like someone's thoughts ever stopped others from having all the sex they ever wanted. Even in the prehistoric days of the early 20th century, when being gay was still kept private, gay people were still having gay sex. They just didn't have a state sanctioned cheering section. Most rational adults support underage drinking laws, but does that stop minors from using alcohol? No, it doesn't.

Are thoughts truly daggers that stab the enjoyment out of life of others, or are they the precious possessions of every human being, regardless of where they reside on any spectrum? Oh wait! You want to talk about someone refusing to bake you a cake? Sure, that's rude, and could be considered insulting. But using our legal system to force them to bake you a cake? Get serious. Go somewhere else for the damn cake. Why would anyone want to purchase anything from the baker after being refused anyway? If someone told me their religion prevented them from making cakes for people who like to play video games, I'd be surprised and taken aback, but I'd simply leave with the thought that I'll give my money to someone else for the work, happy in the knowledge I'm not saddled with that particular belief.

The problem we're facing in Western Civilization in 2019 isn't that we're becoming more Right or more Left. The problem isn't Christianity or any other religion. The problem isn't actual hate groups like Neo-Nazis or Nation of Islam, that never accomplish much more than making fools of themselves. The problem we're facing isn't the growing divide between the one percent and everyone else. The problem we're facing has nothing to do with toxic masculinity, gender pronouns, systemic or individual racism, gun ownership, returning abortion laws to individual states, manspreading, mansplaining, capitalism, the republican party, conservatism, etc.

The real problem we're facing?

It's a force growing in our culture that wants to use fear and intimidation to stamp out anything disagreeing with it. Doesn't sound very scary or dangerous?

Not yet, but give it time. As a society we've been compelled to abandon judgment for tolerance, trade tolerance for acceptance, and now trade acceptance for the new paradigm.

The new paradigm is compulsory celebration, and nothing less will be tolerated by those who are currently successful in their efforts to shut down both your ability to disagree and your first amendment right to openly worship the God of your choice.

There are two angels knocking at your door, you'd better answer it.

Sunday, November 17, 2019

Evil is now good, good is now evil

I'm sure at this point most adults have heard of "Antifa."

For an unadulterated look at the people who claim to be anti-fascist and championing our country, view this:

Does Antifa know what Fascism is? | Interviewing Proud Boys Protesters at Trump Tower

I wouldn't expect anyone to watch the entire twenty-seven minutes of this sh** show. But it would be wise to take a good look, regardless of your political leanings, and absorb what is happening right before our very eyes.

Yes, we are living in 2019. The most advanced civilization in the history of the planet. A population that is experiencing the greatest wealth, abundance, freedom and opportunity in history.

And this is what some of us choose to do with our lives?

From a dispassionate standpoint, as long as Antifa's worst antics continue at a relatively low frequency, they will remain little more than a circus attraction and a cautionary tale of how not to behave in a civil society.

But, if they keep taking to the streets and acting aggressive and obnoxious instead of peacefully protesting, there will surely come a day when the wrong person is in the crowd, believes he or she has nothing to lose, and has sufficiently fed himself or herself with an infuriating, long term video stream of these kinds of twisted confrontations. Forget reactionary groups like the Proud Boys; the mortal carnage by a solitary, mentally unstable malcontent will make Proud Boys fisticuffs seem like Sesame Street.

The title of this essay is referring to the phenomena we've all come to recognize from the Left: attributing the conservative sectors they hate with the very traits the Leftists themselves possess, and accusing conservatives of committing the very infractions against freedom the Left are committing by censoring speech, intimidation via social media, using legal pressure to cow everyone into accepting things that some individuals do not find acceptable, and of course, the now well known examples of Antifa physically harming people who disagree with them.

The two fellows who asked for Elad's personal information, along with the cameraman's, are obviously attempting to frighten them. Whether or not they successfully dox, and potentially harass,  these members of the press is almost beside the point. The craven nature of hiding behind a mask and/or computer is evident. They see themselves as revolutionaries, but their actions are those of domestic terrorists in a free country.

See for yourself here

A "point of privilege":

These miscreants apparently have never experienced any genuine danger. If they keep this aggressive, disrespectful behavior up, they're going to start eating pavement, steel and lead. Then, and only then, will the remaining ones admit the error of trying to intimidate reasonable people by threats, doxing and violence. At the end of it all, for all the sadness of their needless passing, the knowledge that they created their own fate will be clear to anyone who watched all this nonsense transpire thanks to the reporters they tried to silence.

Thursday, November 7, 2019

YouTube censorship continues

YouTube recently took down a video, citing "hate speech" as the reason:

Dr. Michelle Cretella on Transgenderism: A Mental Illness is Not a Civil Right

At first glance, a reasonable person should consider whether or not the charge is accurate. Due to the language YouTube used on the removed video page, one might be inclined to believe that the video was full of hate speech. You know, things like saying X are scum, or Y should die, etc. But was this really what the video contained?

No. Thank goodness Bitchute, the repository that does NOT censor individual opinion, has the same video on their site. You are free to watch the video there and make up your own mind:

Dr. Cretella president of the American College of Pediatricians on Transgenderism: A Mental Illness

You can also read the transcript here:

Transcript of the full interview

What does the video actually contain?

Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, discusses important issues regarding children and the transgender movement, from the point of view of a pediatrician, not a political provocateur.

I'd love to go off on an angry tangent here, but I won't. All one has to do is listen to her interview to understand the gravity of what's actually going on. It's no longer something that will go away if ignored, because the Texas legal battle over seven year old James Younger proves that the abuse of children is not off limits to those with a particular agenda:

Why it's wrong to chemically castrate children

Back to YouTube censorship. Before I discovered the video also on Bitchute, I found this video on YouTube:

The terrible fraud of 'transgender medicine'

You might say, "Wait. YouTube allows this video, so they can't really be censoring people who don't adhere to their preferred political platforms."

The problem with that conclusion becomes apparent when one considers the public visibility of any particular spokesperson. There's a very good chance that the people with agendas who troll YouTube looking for videos to flag just haven't gotten around to Van Meter's video yet. Dr. Cretella has been seen speaking about the matter on national news networks so her profile is easier to target, Van Meter has a lower public profile at this point. Here's Dr. Cretella on a recent OAN broadcast:

Doctor Lays Out Dangers Of Using Puberty Blockers On Children

Here's an article that talks about YouTube's censorship and cites several experts on the issue of transgenderism:

YouTube Removes Video On Gender Transitions, Claims Doctor's Comments Are 'Hate Speech'

So... should you be upset about censorship of non-partisan, scientific content that sheds light on an issue that is fraught with bias and emotion, or about the content of the video itself, that shares professional medical information directly contradicting the politically correct perception of gender dysphoria?

Take your pick, but whatever you do, don't imagine the subject matter is a harmless fad, at least where children are involved. They can't protect themselves, we're supposed to be doing that. Let's not abandon their well being for misguided virtue signalling.

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Catch-22 alive and well

Either civilization was a product of evolution or it was a product of a top-down influence like God. You can't have both.

If evolution is the truth, and we evolved from primitive, survival-of-the-fittest origins, then why are we still arguing about the same things we were arguing about in ancient Mesopotamia, still killing each other, and still sexualizing children?

Shouldn't our historical course be incrementally exemplified by more kindness, more cooperation and less selfishness, if the evolutionary biologists and psychologists are correct that our instincts of cooperation and altruism were merely more successful survival strategies?

So then the next question should be:

If evolution is not true, and we received our moral perspective from God, then why are we still arguing about the same things we were arguing about in ancient Mesopotamia, still killing each other, and still sexualizing children?

Shouldn't the fact that God gave us our moral tenets motivate us to continually progress to a more unified existence?

There is no contradiction in that regard. The Hebrew and Greek scriptures explain quite clearly why the human condition does not continually improve in those areas.

But that's the Catch-22. If you're a staunch defender of Darwin's core theory, you are duty bound to insist that those same scriptures are just the mythological fancy of a bunch of Bronze Age sheepherders and first century fishermen.

Either the secular humanists and evolutionary biologists are correct about the dawn of civilization, or they are not.

Let's stop pretending we can have it all.