Posted on 06/04/2013 8:15:15 PM PDT by EveningStar
I don’t know who you are?
The bible boldly proclaims that creation testifies of a God. And indeed until modern times people at least believed in spirit, if not in a God. Natural philosophy was rooted in such beliefs; it was firmly held that God WANTED us to delve into how the universe was built, that such revelation to humans would increase God’s glory. Somehow that all went wobble narky with materialism winning the day, with materialism wanting to have its spiritual cake (i.e. to claim any imperative at all) while eating it too (i.e. denying that there was any such thing as spirit).
This thread has been around for awhile now, a number of people have tried to penetrate your defenses, and I think you have made it clear where you are on the issue of the homosexual agenda.
You are a self declared libertarian, a liberal on these conservative issues, it explains why you cannot speak on them, but merely post articles around the net on conservative sites, promoting and disseminating your point of view, while avoiding speaking on them.
Heh, heh, heh!
Did you expect anything except for it to get roundly panned?
Heh, heh, heh!
There is no requirement for anyone to provide any response to you, or to be judged first by you as being worthy or unworthy of posting a news article.
If you have proof of something wretched you wish to share about a fellow Freeper, rather than making insinuations and accusations, please hit the abuse button.
Otherwise kindly stop playing thread cop.
Thank you.
Exactly so. Nature clearly reflects Nature’s God. Have you read any of Phillip Johnson’s books? I have three or four of them and haven’t read them all, need to dig out the one I’m in the middle of and finish it.
Why did my comment get deleted?
I did not break any of the FR rules that I know of - wasn’t racist, didn’t advocate violence, no profanity.
I merely expressed my valid viewpoint that Evening Star is deceitful in posting pro-homosexual agenda articles and then pretending to have no opinion, and then when clearly asked about his viewpoint, uses weasel words.
Is that somehow breaking FR rules?
Meeting your test of honesty would be difficult for many Freepers, since many Freepers either choose not to answer your questions, or never get around to answering your questions. Yet that does not make them deceitful nor does it make them unworthy of posting on Free Republic.
Playing the mind reading game can work both ways especially when accusing someone of something or of pretending. In any case, it is not the mien of most Conservatives, nor is name calling.
Repeating what I posted a few minutes ago:
There is no requirement for anyone to provide any response to you, or to be judged first by you as being worthy or unworthy of posting a news article.
If you have proof of something wretched you wish to share about a fellow Freeper, rather than making insinuations and accusations, please hit the abuse button.
Otherwise kindly stop playing thread cop.
Thank you.
Wow, I think we need some new FR rules added.
1. No thread copping (whatever that means)
2. No asking people what their opinions more than once
3. No name calling? Wow, that will cut down about 15% of comments right there. All the deleted comments will save a lot of bandwidth.
4. No accusing anyone of anything.
Are we on FR or in kindergarten?
I bit, and went through their thing on the website. Circular logic.
Basically, they said that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any treatment for it falls outside of mainstream psychological treatment. As a result, it cannot possibly work, and what little research there is on the matter supports this, including the two major lawsuits currently pending on the matter.
So, for those trying to follow this:
It doesn’t work because the APA voted on homosexuality NOT being a mental disease in 1973. Only a psychologist can treat a mental disorder, and they voted that it wasn’t.
All of this from a website with ‘science’ in the title.
The best part was in the last slide, where one reputed psychologist did a study indicating that conversion therapy DOES work. But, they added that the reputed psychologist later ‘recanted’ the study based on the methodology of it.
So, the study was flawed, but the way the APA concluded homosexuality wasn’t a mental disoder was by a show of hands at a convention. That’s literally how it happened - they voted on it, and it disappeared from the DSM IV.
That’s how climate chance became science - by polling.
Any science that is divided into two groups with these titles - believers and deniers - isn’t a science. Quad era demonstratum.
I thought that we could feel someone out about their seeming support for the homosexual agenda.
But if you say that is not to be done with EveningStar, then OK.
Just so you know that this homosexual thing isn’t new, and that thread cop can even be played by someone with a more friendly relationship to the homosexual agenda. This kind of thing is an old story.
From this thread “”Forum Poll: Do you approve of Homosexual/Lesbian couples raising children?”” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1751537/posts?page=204#204
To: Admin Moderator
This thread covers no new ground and has no positive effect on discourse.
202 posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 5:26:31 PM by EveningStar
To: EveningStar
“This thread covers no new ground and has no positive effect on discourse.”
And yet - yours is the 202nd reply on this meaningless thread...;-)
204 posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 5:56:57 PM by Admin Moderator
I was probably PWI that evening. :)
At 5:26 in the afternoon on a workday?
I think your effort to shut down that anti-homosexual agenda thread was merely part of a pattern that has been mentioned on this thread.
I've been retired since October 2004.
I think your effort to shut down that anti-homosexual agenda thread was merely part of a pattern that has been mentioned on this thread.
Seriously, I regret doing that. I would not do such a thing today.
Still, 5:26 on a Monday afternoon, and you are assuming that you were drunk when you posted that?
ROTFLMAO!
I just came upon this topic. I have to agree with the 'paranoid' poster. You do push the homosexual agenda on FR REPEATEDLY! I have a 'paranoid' feeling that this will just be more of the same. This should be good reading.
One may ask WHY homosexual agenda topics get posted on FR? Primarily it is to rally opposition to the agenda. NOT to debate whether or not there is an agenda, nor to better understand and accept the perverse activity. Another reason topics are posted is to expose and counter the propaganda.
Your posting fits into which category I wonder?
Jeremiah, you know that I am in agreement with you on social issues. I do, however, believe that the moderators may have more information than we do on EveningStar.
He's indicated that his real name is known, although I don't know it, and he's indicated that he posts on a number of other forums as well. He's openly identified himself as a libertarian of Deist religious inclinations, pro-Israel, and a Zionist. That sounds to me like a fair number of secular Jewish conservatives who I know, and given how hard it is for a non-observant Jewish person to become politically conservative, I'm inclined to “cut some slack” for people in that situation. There are a fair number people in the Likud Party, possibly including Benjamin Netanyahu himself, who would draw serious fire if they started posting on Free Republic about moral issues.
With regard to the issue of “thread cops” — in the last few years I've seen the Free Republic moderators more actively trying to curtail what has sometimes become “vigilante justice.” I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but good intentions have not always had good results.
“Crowdsourcing” is good because many eyes are better than one. I'm totally in favor of checking out people who may be trolls. On the other hand, even though I'm a hard-right evangelical by virtually anyone’s definition, and have a decades-long track record of conservative Christian activism, in the past I've been the target of people who accused me — with no foundation whatsoever — of hating Christians, being a liberal, being a paid political operative for RINOs, etc.
Bottom line: I'm inclined to trust the moderators if they say somebody isn't “out of bounds.” They may very well know things that would change our minds if we knew them.
There are no 'gay' people. Let me repeat: There are no 'gay' beings! There is no scientific evidence, no objective identification method. It is all about activity that some may be predisposed to and or CHOOSE to engage in.
There is a reason there was a don't ask don't tell policy in the military -the only reason there could be one. BECAUSE there are no 'gay' beings.
As such 'conversion' therapy as it is called by those who spread propaganda is not about converting a 'gay' beings into a normal beings. That would be magic. The same magic the leftists employed when they created these non existent 'gay' beings that are supposedly victimized by normal people. Victims that need to be saved by government is a leftist thing.
No, conversion therapy is all about behavioral science. It is about changing behaviors and NOT about magic -NOT even about reversing the supposed rainbow 'gay' magic the left promotes.
One could stop here. After all, the whole premise that this article is planted upon is false -it is plain and simple PROPAGANDA posted on FR...
However, I will read the propaganda so kindly posted on FR because a reason to laugh needs no excuse AND the 'gay' being magical fairy stories are always funny and yet as well sad -one can sympathize with the human aspect of these poor souls who simply want to be accepted in spite of the fact that they engage in and promote such perverted activities that society rightly rejects and justly discriminates against.
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.