Neanderpundit

And despite the efforts of people to harsh my mellow, I am still doing the happy dance. I can’t say why just now. meanwhile, here are some cute dogs.

The dachs pups in the beginning are doing a re-enactment of my life.

You wanted this.

“All religion with any sort of afterlife is inherently evil: they teach people, starting as children, that they don’t need to clean up their messes in this life.”

Prove that. Of course, you cannot. It is an opinion(Though asserted as fact), and it is ignorant, and it is based in your own personal damage, for which the rest of the faithful in the world are not responsible.

Here’s a particlarly good one:

“Cond000whatever tells us he LURVES him some Bill of Rights, then says, “Are there good Muslims? Yes of course: those who really don’t practice or follow their religion. All they need to do is to pick another one which doesn’t sanction killing and lying.” So they can have their religion as long as they don’t have their religion? You’d be screamin’ First Amendment long and loud if any Fed said that about members of YOUR sect. ”

All of this, of course, missed the point of that discussion, which was basically that while many (Probably most) Judeo Christian religions are just about in line with the Bill of Rights, Islam is diametrically at odds to it. Everyone who responded to that specific thread understood and understands that but you. Of course again, you represented your opinion as fact.

Here’s another real gem:

“RobC: you don’t know me and you don’t know as much as I know about evil. Not even close.”

Orly? Well, the first part is certainly true, we only know you from your writing. On the other hand, the second part is ignorance and utter nonsense. Being harmed as a child doesn’t make you a special snowflake, darling, get over it. Most people get that and move on, and dont’ let the actions of some asshole many years back define their behavior their whole lives. To claim someone “Doesnt’ know as much as you do about evil” is simply ludicrous, I can find a dozen people today who can tellyou stories of their youth that will leave you curled on the ground. I have a few myself, but I don’t let them keep me from functioning.

I like this one”

“Og, no. You can’t be reasoned with over an unprovable set of beliefs and I am not gonna try. ”

I have no beliefs to be reasoned out of. I know what you were saying, though. You won’t be reasoned out of your unprovable set of beliefs.

I like this one.

“Og, priests have molested children and been shielded by the Church. It’s a fact.”

Of course it is, and there is not one place on the blog where I said it wasn’t, ever. I challenge you to find that, anywhere. You were, as usual, responding to your prejudices about who I am, and not me. A common theme, in discussions with you.

Here are several of those, in particular.

“H’mmm, so group size makes a difference in terms of human rights? And persons X and Y getting civilly married infringes on the religious freedom of (far larger) group Z? That’s the same kind of reasoning behind the European persecution of Jews (Sumptuary laws, barring from certain professions, neighborhoods or even entire nations).”

Again, nothing anyone suggested, just you superimposiong your prejudices of who and what I am onto the issue

“Og, you’re arguing based on personalities and on that whole goofball “gay agenda” thing.”

1: Really? You can see into my mind and say how and what I’m arguing?
2: yep, goofball gay agenda. Keep believing that.

I particularly like this one as well:

“You do care what people do: you’ve singled out certain of them as unfit to marry one another on the basis of what they do and who they are.”

Of course, not just a lie, but a lie which is made of whole cloth, in your mind, and attributed to me, when nothing can ever be further from the truth.

Moving to the most recent debacle, This is an awesome comment.

“Y’know, linkin’ to me don’t make it any more fun to have to deal with your misapprehensions.”

Who is it that has the misapprehensions, again? the post was neither directed at you, nor anything other than a nod to the fact that you got to attend the blogmeet, and I was stuck home hanging cabinets. You can dislike anything I have to say about libertarians (You vaccilate between calling yourself a libertarian and an anarchist, I’d like to know which it actually is)but “Misapprehensions” is your opinion, and a rather weak one at that, based on the post itself
Then there’s “Cripes, Og, do I spend column-inches in my blog runnin’ down your crazier stuff — or, worse yet,*my* *impressions* of your crazy stuff? No, I have not.

I’m gonna hafta go write about libbytaianism now, dammit. ”

The irony of that statement cannot possibly be lost on you. And then you titled the post- well, you know what you titled it. And of course, it is again, your opinion of what was going on inside my head, not what was actually going on inside my head. So again, you are having a great time crucifying me for what you think I think. And you are always wrong.

“I won’t debate you, Og; Jesuits trained you and you consider internal consistency to be equivalent to making objective sense”

Facts are facts. Facts are consistent with facts, because they are, in fact, facts. I dont’ consider internal anything, I just use logic and facts. You wont’ debate me because you only bring feelings to the table.

I LOVE this.

“Og, there are gay people out there who want to marry or are married, who don’t want to “destroy…religion.” They are, in fact, indifferent to it. Poof, your assertion is disproved. ”

That is of course the most ignorant thing I have ever heard a human say.

Prove to me that i said “All gays” want to do anything. I did not, of course, because to say such a thing would be as fucking ignorant as saying something like “Og, there are gay people out there who want to marry or are married, who don’t want to “destroy…religion.” They are, in fact, indifferent to it. Poof, your assertion is disproved. ”

I never said anything of the sort. There are gay people that just want to live together peacefully. There are gay people who just want to suck each other’s cocks in public bathrooms. There are gay people who just want to dress up in leather and rubber and march in parades. I don’t really care too much about that. But there are, as I have often linked to, many gays who have as their objective the punsihment and where possible the destruction of the faiths that cannot accept them.

it has been my observation in previous discussions that you hold the whole of the Church responsible for the vanishingly small numbers of their member who molest children. That may be an incorrect observation, I would certainly not represent it as fact. Still, if a few bad priests taint the whole religion how is it that a few bad gays don’t taint the whole movement? So long as one is out there shouting “Burn the churches and tax the timbers” the small-C churches are at risk, and without the small c churches the Large C Church is in dissaray.

Since I am inside most of this and have witnessed the progression for many years, I am more attuned to it than most, but it is certainly not me alone saying this. And lots of people I know, when confronted with the facts of the situation, fall into the “It doesnt’affect me” camp, except that it does affect us all. As it does anytime a vanishingly small percentage of the population forces the rest of the population to redefine an ancient institution to suit them

You seem to labor under the impression that i hate gays. I most assuredly do not. I cannot read your mind, of course, as you often seem to be able to read mine:

“Your religion — and my lack of it — assures that we have no common ground on which to debate and, as I have already pointed out, there is no resolution possible.”

There is no subject- save of course, theology- that I can not discuss utterly sans theology. THe issue of Gay Marriage is no exception; the institution of the Church that is under fire does not relate to faith, my concern is for the business end of things alone.

““THe simple fact is that the gay agenda is specific to one thing, and that is the destruction of religion in any forms it considers unacceptible, in other words, any theology that is antithetical to homosexuality.” –Gotta cite for that last one?”

Yes. Yes, I do. Have you ever bothered to read any of them?

I love you and I hope for the best for you always. I would love to have a reasoned discussion with you on the subject. You have proven yourself incapable of reason in this manner; you have met some gay people,. and you like them so I am wrong. I’m a “religious kook”, because I ‘believe” this, so I am wrong.

When I cite circumstances that support m position, all you can bring is “Hey, ever hear of “The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion?”
If you want me to take your opinions seriosly, you have to come here with more than “I know gay people, and you’re wrog because I say so” because that’s all you ever bring.