Home » “Queers for Palestine”

Comments

“Queers for Palestine” — 21 Comments

  1. Apropos of nothing, I’m starting a new group called “Chickens for Kentucky Fried Chicken”.

  2. Allowing any leftwing Arab group to get asylum in Israel is idiotic. Queers for Palestine should apply for asylum in the US anyway, you know Biden will pay their airfare to import them. If they do go to Israel for asylum, it will be to embed themselves in the population for the day when they can commit acts of terror, to prove their loyalty to Islam.

  3. The below analysis might describe the “frisson” felt by so many…believing that they are—FINALLY—free to express a hate they believe to be so VIRTUOUS…
    Perhaps…
    …since the attraction to power—and unfettered ability to express such attraction in a virtuous way—would seem to have a tendency to warp one’s intellectual as well as emotional equilibrium…(just ask Foucault…).

    “Europe will soon face a direct Arab invasion;
    “It is a case of predator and prey right before the jump. From the Arabs’ point of view, their time has come.”—
    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/386261

    The will to hate as a function of Human Rights?
    “Justice, justice, thou shalt pursue”?

    The thrill of sheer hatred more likely…

    Given the above, France’s recent decision to expand “The Rights of Man and of the Citizen” may raise a few eyebrows…though, once again, maybe not…since maybe, just maybe, the actual thrill is SUICIDE….
    “French Senate Approves Enshrining Abortion in Constitution”—
    https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/french-senate-approves-enshrining-abortion-in-constitution/

  4. In the early 80s,at the height of the AIDS epidemic, when AIDS still was called GRIDS, Gay Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, health workers advised San Francisco’s gay community that it’s members could avoid contracting a lethal disease by living chaste lives, or pairing off with a partner who was HIV negative. Almost unanimously the community proudly insisted that it would continue with its highly promiscuous lifestyle because “that was who they are,” and that they would be giving up their identity by changing their sexual behavior. The result, of course, was that the community was almost wiped out. Queers for Palestine share the same mentality, but with a soupçon of antisemitism with this previous generation of gay fools.

  5. Nanopod – you’ll get more participation from the left if you start ‘Chickens for Chic Fil A’.

  6. The lie is that we should ALL accept LGBTQ as just normal, with a kinky twist, is deeply offensive to many of us, who still believe marriage is between a man and a woman, in primo for them to beget children. That is not part of the LBGTQ formula, a worship of orgasm, which is a formula for humanity’s decay. In our present wave of secular materialism, we should be tolerant of deviancy? How much deviancy? To defund the police and let serial violent felons loose without incarceration? Such deviancy goes against the grain of human history.

  7. Re Cicero,
    Yes, the Gods of the Copybook Headings may be returning soon.

  8. They better sprout wings and learn to fly once launched from those apartment building roof tops.

  9. The lie is that we should ALL accept LGBTQ as just normal, with a kinky twist, is deeply offensive to many of us, who still believe marriage is between a man and a woman, in primo for them to beget children. That is not part of the LBGTQ formula, a worship of orgasm, which is a formula for …

    Interesting remark from the standpoint of my realist/anti-nominalist philosophical fixation.

    As a doctor you cannot avoid something like the concepts of health, homeostasis and proper function or “purpose”, all of which are conceptually realist and imply a teleology in some fashion.

    The anti-essentialist loons who’ve reduced themselves to objectively purposeless skin-bags of random urges, are left with no leverage to stake any rationally arbitrated claims for anything against anyone.

    So with the verbal sleight of hand typical to rhetoricians without a respectable cause they ape natural law phrasings which are empty of content and try to leverage off of ” pleasure” as if I or anyone else has a moral obligation to care if a soulless skin-bag [ we having already provisionally granted them their atheism and anti-essentialism as redoundingly applicable] reach a climax.

    The contextless, ultimately purposeless orgasm which you mention, is as unmoored from a system of moral imperative or rational social concern and arbitration as are their “acts of will” or their supposed ” interests”, “sentience”, “agency” or “flourishing”.

    They just never seemed to realize that the acids they spewed would eventually blow back in their own faces dissolving their own “personhood” as anything intrinsically respectable.

    Hence all the rhetorical bullsh*t we see promoting empathy as a substitute for right reason.

  10. Cicero; DNW:

    Plenty of gay men and lesbian women live with their partners in conventional, stable unions based on love and commitment, and plenty of heterosexuals fit your definition of worshiping the mighty “O” without that commitment and with no intent or willingness to have children.

    Yes, the percentages are different for each group (more heterosexuals in committed married relationships), and only heterosexuals can conceive children with each other through intercourse. But plenty have no intention of doing so.

    You’re free, of course, to have any opinion you want about all of this. But it seems to me that what you are condemning exists among gay people and among heterosexual people, merely to different degrees.

  11. How did israel end up 44th on that list

    Its like that weird heritage foundation list that put new zealand and australia in the top 10

  12. “Cicero; DNW:

    Plenty of gay men and lesbian women live with their partners in conventional, stable unions based on love and commitment, and plenty of heterosexuals fit your definition of worshiping the mighty “O” without that commitment …”

    Cicero is making one assertion, and I am using that to make an argument which is implied by the values nihilism concomitant with his observation.

    Unlike Cicero, I am not arguing pair bond fidelity, but rather the necessity of teleological understanding for the formation of moral categories, and for the membership within them which grants the other the status of fellow and moral peer.
    I really don’t care how faithful buggerers are to each other. Logically speaking, it doesn’t glue back the broken crockery.

    It’s as irrelevant as the ridiculous ” social recognition of our love” crap which some, not saying you, appeal to in favor of gay unions.

  13. DNW:

    It seems to me that your philosophizing resembles the left’s identity politics, in which people are treated as categories rather than individuals.

  14. Deep deep philosophical baggage to carry around; amazing to learn that by philosophy one can discern from afar whether another human being, or non human “skin bag,” has a soul.

  15. neo on March 7, 2024 at 6:48 pm said:
    DNW:

    It seems to me that your philosophizing resembles the left’s identity politics, in which people are treated as categories rather than individuals.

    The key word was redounding. And so, insofar as my analytical approach is to force them to dine on the table they’ve set, to be strictly subject to the anthropology which they have developed, then, to that extent, yes.

    As far as Om goes, someone might direct him to some of the current transhumanist literature, or to Rorty’s “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity ” or even to the first Humanist Manifesto, or any other number of sources: if he actually has any interest in grasping the issues involved and in philosophical anthropology and the implications for moral duties obligations and rules of recognition.

    Souls? They laughingly call it spirit goo. The brain? A meat computer. The human? A meat machine.

    So he should read up and look around.

    Or he can just thump the Bible, if he prefers, and figures others will find it convincing. The harder he pounds the more persuasive … Or something.

  16. amazing to learn that by philosophy one can discern from afar whether another human being, or non human “skin bag,” has a soul.

    LOL

    By the way you don’t need philosophy to discern that. They will gladly tell you: “No”.

    You only need philosophy, or basic logic to work out the moral implications of their saying that.

  17. LOL indeed a “philosopher” who can separate those with and without a soul.

    Mind as big as a planet.

    We are not worthy.

  18. a “philosopher” who can separate those with and without a soul.

    Poor thing. Your emotions are interfering with your reading comprehension.

    As stated previously: They will tell you if they think that they have a soul; and if so, what they imagine they mean by it, and what if anything it should mean to anyone else..

    They separate themselves.

    If that upsets you, argue with them.

    The ” ‘ philosopher’s ‘ ” job is merely to draw out the implications.

    This, seems to upset you too though. In fact virtually everything and everyone seems to upset you.

    You should try being more … philosophical, about these matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>