A conjoined Hell, the haves, and the have-nots. This is what these christians see for themselves. Oh, they're the only one's included. Who's their YEHOWAH? Will he be peaceful, or insane? Maybe that Satan and that YEHOWAH will merge and destroy everyone there.

Why must Daath be seen as a portal to "the backside"? There is no backside. It's an imbalance. Yet people like Travis believe in the "klippot". Hell I guess. Tunnels of Set. And christians believe in Hell. But really it's all the violence, greed and lies of the Form/Severity Pillar. And no one recognizes the spiritual source at the top of the Force/Mercy Pillar. YEHOWAH. So it's a huge imbalance to the left of the Tree as one looks at it.

God physicalized. YEHOWAH. Despite the impossibility of this, whatever "materializes" is going to be *gigantically pissed off*.

What Jason cannot seeem to accept is that when it comes to the sexual activity of each of us our choices are relative. Jason is as free to pursue his asexual or anti sexual lifestyle as the rest of us are to be as sexually active as we see fit. Relativism is a vlaid concept when applied to our sexual lives. This means he can preach his gospel of repressed sexuality and we can encourage sex positive attitudes. As long as it involves consentual activity between adults (or alone) there are no absolutes involved. It IS all relative weather Jason approves or not.

Unless Jason was a test tube baby or the product of an immuclate conception or virgin birth scenario then he is here because two people fucked.

Sexual liberation is here to stay. Since we still live in a free society the one and only option that people like Jason have is to not participate in sexual activity. The rest of us are free to do what we choose totally free of guilt or shame.

Orgasms are an inherent right of being human. Pursue them to your heart's content with no limits.

ANDREW POSTED :the Jews of the time (these were Jews, Jesus, Peter so on, diaspora Jews, but Jews all the same),

RESPONSE: Indeed they are Jews . Jesus in the gospel according to John said to the Samaritan woman at the well, 'Salvation is of the Jews' . That does not mean that non jews are "unsaved" .

That sucks. Someone put that shit on Youtube.

foetus.org/content/shop/downloads

Listen. "You take away, I give you all, you take away, I give you all I got..."

And the apostle aked Jesus; "Lord, teach us how to masturbate"

I can't wait to rage on these motherfuckers. They hide in the dark and accuse, thinking that this vacates their crimes. I await societal degradation.

Jason: "As I feared you are GUILTY OF THE OWNERSHIP FALLACY: that weird fallacy (based on lateral thinking) which conflates (A) the message with the totally *separate context* of (C) the messenger !!!! ... YOU , PINKY , REVERSE THE CHAIN OF EVENTS ..PRESENT A BACKWARDS CHAIN OF EVENTS .
You Pinky try to make it seem that Number (3) in the chain of events is the cause (the antecedent) of Number (1) when it is not .!"

PINKY POSTED :Really, there's no need to yell. I'm flattered that I have such a profound effect on you to arouse such anger and frustration, but really, misuse of the caps lock can be considered very rude.

RESPONSE: Well I didn't do it for the sake of being stident for its own sake, but rather to emblazon the key concepts in the forefront of attention .

PINKY POSTED :That being said, your chain of events (1: you are driven to support the "beliefs espoused by" a group; 2: you align with said group; 3: you join the group and support said beliefs) is a valid means of...well, it's valid. It happens all the time - it is the path of "the follower." Instead of coming up with some beliefs of your own, you copy someone else's. This doesn't negate the fact that said beliefs are, still, SOMEONE'S opinion, even if they're not your own (which I would still argue that they are also YOUR opinion since you made the active, personal, free choice to follow them vs. not as you outlined in your lengthier-worded version of Step Two), but I know you'll get all butt-hurt and defensive if I say that so let's just forget I ever did, and I'll try a (slightly) more diplomatic approach below:

RESPONSE: (1) They are NOT "my" anything . Ultimately, there are NO yours nor mine , theirs nor ours nor his nor hers when it comes to intangible abstractions like beliefs . My fingers are mine, the ink pen i sometimes write with is mine likewise your fingers , property ect is yours , but there is no yours and mine to abstract intangibles like beliefs ect. Realizing that can help you, Pinky to avoid the ownership fallacy .

In popular talk we may use ownership terms like that if we are pressed for time as a sort of hyperbole that makes language less drawn out , but not talking such ownership terms literally in regard to beliefs can help us avoid the ownership fallacy !

(2) The beliefs the group I agree with presents --the beliefs that Duty has led me to agree with --are NOT opinions , but absolute truths ..but moving on to the rest of the paragraphs you posted .

PINKY POSTED :So just to recap, you found a group that supports some kick-ass beliefs. You decide those are some kick-ass beliefs to support, so you decide to join said group and support said kick-ass beliefs. That still isn't what makes you a self-righteous dickhead. That's never been what I'm saying does. What I am (and have been) saying makes you a self-righteous dickhead is that you berate people who support not-so-kick-ass beliefs for not supporting kick-ass beliefs along with you. The problem here is that you do not just berate the beliefs others support (which you do do, admittedly), but you ALSO berate (insult, chastise, belittle, make unfavorable comparisons of, etc.) the PEOPLE that support them. If anything YOU are blurring the line between the beliefs people support and the people that support them by treating them as one and the same. By insulting others (and their beliefs) you publicly, clearly and undeniably identify said people (and the beliefs they support) as lesser (lower, inferior, not-so-kick-ass, etc.) than you (and the beliefs you support, and the people who also support them), whether or not you consciously intend to.

RESPONSER: Well let us NOT lose sight of that the crass and murky beliefs ought to be berated, denounced, browbeat, chastised, denigrated , debunked and belittled with utmost vehemence. Yes, we should try not to get personal in doing avoid using cuss words at people and whatnot , nonetheless , we should *not* hesitate to tell people when beliefs are crass , murky , disingenous , that such beliefs are indeed totally wrong for that is helping those people to reform ---it is *constructive criticism* when we denigrate such beliefs as totally wrong and worthless ! Constructive criticism !

See the people who have crass, murky opinions and so on they should just regard those crass, murky opinions as some mess then temporarily got involved in ! They should not feel any kinship for such beliefs , but should just regard them as some mess they unfortuantely got into , feel ashamed of such beliefs, reform and then move on without looking back ---leaving such beliefs behind as so much mess or dung to be sloughed off !

I'm certainly greatful for people when they rightly told me off, during those times in the past I professed a belief like (at times) in my pre-teen , or teenage , or early to mid 20's that was murky or in any what NON-consistent and I'm glad for the ones who made me feel guilty about having a lazy , murky belief in the past--that they did not talk any of that namby pamby sellout talk of saying "i respect your point of view but there is another perspective yada yada" squish, but instead explained matters vehemently in a way that made me ashamed of such murky beliefs . I could kiss their hand in gratitude !

Jason: "If duplicty , equivocation, and other NON-consitent squish is what you mean by "intelligence"
then perhaps such "intelligence" isn't what it is cracked up to be ."

PINKY POSTED :No, but thanks for playing.

RESPONSE: Hmnnn ....

Jason: "How ?"

PINKY POSTED :How did it go over your head? It could be one of (or a multitude of) many things. You misread, I mistyped, you misunderstood, I mis-explained...could be a lot of things, but if I knew HOW it managed to fly over your head, I would be spending my time trying to correct it instead of bickering with you as to why it fucking happened in the first place, but really I have no idea.

RESPONSE: I see .

Jason: "Then the probability that the good , noble , pure wholesome, idyllic Hutterites who might see some worthless tacky contemporary pop culture for a fleeting glimpse when singing at a nursing home and glancing out of the corner of their eye at some passing t.v. show , would be far less than people in bourgeous suburbia (the latter who are saturated with that worthless trendy stuff then , right ) ?"

PINKY POSTED :I believe the ending to this proposition you were looking for was, "to be influenced by the media." Without a subject your sentence (which was also very unnecessarily long-winded btw) was directionless and a little confusing. But assuming I'm correct about the subject, then my answer would be: Presumably.

RESPONSE: Yes, that was a typo . Earnest thanks in correcting the typo (for the phrase you supplied at the end would be similar to what I left out) . Okay .

So since presumably , we absolutists can be optimistic about the Hutterites being less likely to get corrupted by media influence . Reassuring .

Jason: "Yes we should be us versus them with vapid, murky groups be they the KKK, or the Aryan skinheads , or the conformist trendy yuppies . The abolitionists were certainly us versus them towards the slaveholders . They were NOT opinion- respecting ambivalent sissies ."

PINKY POSTED :You're taking a very aggressive outlook on these things, and I'd say it's fueled by an overabundance of testosterone, but if it were, you would have gotten your dick wet by now, so I'm not sure what to blame it on.

RESPONSE: Duty inspires the passion to fervently *dislike* ambivalent thinking (i.e. sellout thinking)

PINKY POSTED :The point is, fighting the KKK/skinheads/pre-Emancipation slave-owners was LESS of an "US vs. THEM" kinda thing and more of a "us FOR them" kinda thing ("them" being the blacks/minorities/slaves in the given situations, respectively). In fact, the abolitionists were VERY MUCH opinion-respecting - of the SLAVES.

RESPONSE: Wait a moment. There you go astray with the wrong nomenclature again .The beliefs supported by the slaves that slavery was evil was NOT mere opinion in the first place , but, instead, totally, absolutely right, noble, and True ethical beliefs .

The beliefs of the racist white slaveowners was what was opinion and false opinion at that totally wrong NOT "wrong to us" or "wrong from a perspective " but totally wrong opinions and totally worthless and evil opinion!

Thus , we have the glaring contrast of the virtuous , noble, absolutely true beliefs of the African slaves and the mere opinion (and totally false evil worthless opinion at that) of the rich racist , slaveowners , quite a contrast !.

PINKY POSTED :Abolishing racism, sexism, oppression and the like are movements of working FOR equality, tolerance, freedom and justice AT LEAST as much as they are movements of working AGAINST inequality, intolerance, tyranny and injustice (and/or the people who support such things).

RESPONSE: Those movements such as abolitionism were moverments FOR justice and equality , but not for tolerance .

Read some of the abolitionists , like John Brown, Lysander Spooner, Sojourner Truth, the other abolitionists . They did NOT speak any of that squishy . MTV Generation relativist talk about tolerance nor any sissy notion of respecting opinions. They with utmost vehemence denounced the pro-slavery opinions of those slave owners , overseers , and the like as totally wrong , NOT wrong "to us"..NOT wrong from a "perspective", or any of that similar squishy pomo talk .

The abolitionists did *NOT* talk any of that postmodern MTV-era , sellout talk of saying to the slavewhipping plantation masters of the Old South , "I respect your point of view , but I don't agree" , or any similar squish .

PINKY POSTED :So instead of "fighting the good fight" for the right reasons (to save lives, to promote peace, to contribute to positive change), you might still be "fighting the good fight" but for the wrong reasons (to pick on someone, to yell and bitch and moan and whine, and thus contribute to negative change by inspiring more people to pick on others and yell and bitch and moan and whine).

RESPONSE:

PREVENTING some pusiilanimous attitude of "give and take" of "middle-ground" between what is virtuous and what is crass, is fighting the good fight . There should NEVER be any give and take , *never* be any middle ground between beliefs that are good and beliefs that are crass . The notion that "life is give and take" is hogwash and trash . Such an attitude of "give and take" / balance (or middle ground) between goodness and even a tiny bit of crassness is duplicity and a betrayal of the good !!!


PINKY POSTED :Make love, not war. And that doesn't have to mean "have sex," it can just mean "love thy neighbor." How about a little more of that? Eh?

RESPONSE: Among the ways one can love one's neighbor is to rescue them from the mess of wrong opinions they have temporarily gotten involved in . Compassion does not solicit any respect for mere opinions . Nobody ever died from having some opinions they had belittled .Helping people to become totally ashamed of crass opinions and shake them away like so much mess is helping those people ...doing them a favor...reforming them .

Jason: "So you change what the context was all about now !!!"

PINKY POSTED :No, really, I was talking about this from the beginning. I never proposed that parents are the ultimate reason why anything bad happens to their kids (although sometimes it is, but not by the specifics of which we are discussing). NEVER. I HAVE been proposing, however, from the beginning, that parents are responsible for sending the best messages, in the best ways, to their children, in order to avoid as many bad things happening to them as possible (if at all possible). I'm sorry if you were unable to recognize this, but I promise I make a point not to hide any agendas. Perhaps I could have been more clear and/or obvious than I was and for that I apologize, but I never intended you to think that parents are entirely to blame for their children becoming anorexic, bulimic, self-hating, or anything of the like (or that I think so).

RESPONSE: Well perhaps that is what you meant , but the way you phrased it in the earlier post prmoted the impression that you did maintain that parents telling their kids not to undress around the house would lead to those body image problems that lead to eating disorders .Maybe that was accidental missphrasing , in all fairness , as to how you phrased it.

Jason: "Perhaps their minds are led astray by tolerance/relativism/ respect for opinions aka sellout thinking ."

PINKY POSTED :Perhaps you're a santorum-addicted cuckold who's into pegging, but what do any of these presumptions have to do with anything relevant to ANY of the dozens of inevitably pointless squabbles we've been toying with?

RESPONSE: The tendency to respect beliefs that one does not agree with for the sake of balance of not being onesesided is indeed weird, duplicious, and hence , an evil tendency . To do that is to inwardly betray what one believes with ambivalence and ambiguity. Ambivalence/ ambiguity is totally worthless , infinitely worthless !

Which comes back to the perennial insight that all thought sooner or later should return ---that we should always stive to single-mindedly take intrinsic virtue to extremes , that intrinsic virtue should *never* be balanced with anythng even a little bit inherently contrary to goodness. That virtue should NEVER be diluted ; that intrinsic virtue should never be balanced with opposite qualities/ never practiced in moderation.

The notion that intrinsic virtue should be practiced in moderation is an even more evil (infinitely evil) notion than the notion that would even exhort people to seek nothing but evil . Goodness should never be diluted . Ambiguity/ambivalence be dammed . Virtue to extremes --accept nothing less !