"We’ve seen their kind before."

Video

https://www.amren.com/videos/2020/0...

See also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olX...

My own vomit or someone else's?

US should defund UN asap:

When you said <central points> I thought you had something specific in mind, not the central points of any particular debate/argument/discussion.

I have my own, shared some with <TGA>. We’re not in agreement in all things, but it wasn’t a disaster, and I learned a bit.

It’s not like it’s easy to parse all of it. It’s true, tho, that the clause “well-regulated militia” is right there for some reasons. <TGA> mentioned something of them.

IMO there is nothing more to consider.

I appreciate that you posted a link to "reason.com", but I won't read it. In the past, I would have.

But this year, Antifa started open-season hunting of humans, anyone who opposes them.

They are aided and abetted by liberal politicians across the board - city, state and federal. Despite apparently not having jobs, they are extremely well-funded and well-organized. I'm fairly confident I know why.

At this point, there is no reasoning with these people. They are terrorists, operating openly in Democrat-held territory.

Decent people who don't want to see America destroyed need a means to protect themselves, because not only do Democrats make their police stand down, allowing the Commie rabble can riot and vandalize, the evil cabal of BLM, Antifa, and most politicians with a [D] after their name want to defund the police. That would make the security situation even worse than it is now.

I don't want to live in a country where such evil is going on, where the political class allows it to continue, yet I cannot arm myself for self-defense.

This is sad. If Biden wasn't an evil, criminal gangster, I'd feel bad for him.

The choice is not between vomit and a "human being." A human being implies a normal person. I said specifically, a homosexual. I would rather have vomit on my lap than a homosexual, because vomit is less disgusting. The yuck factor is much less.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3...

<PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Hundreds of people gathered Monday afternoon in a small town south of Portland for a pro-Donald Trump vehicle rally – just over a week after a member of a far-right group was fatally shot after a Trump caravan went through Portland. Vehicles waving flags for Trump>

https://www.newsbreak.com/oregon/po...

Notice they justify the murder of the Trump supporter by referring to him as a member of a "Far Right" group? He was part of a group called Patriot Prayer, meaning that they are pro-American and Christian.

I think all moral people would agree with me that they would rather have vomit on their lap rather than a homosexual.>

You would have to be very afraid of homosexuals to take that position. Meaning a woman would probably never agree, and neither would men at ease with their sexuality.

Which is it that makes it "far" right? The pro-American part or the Christian part?>

Fair enough.

To consider <vomit> first, like all "internal" matters (faeces, blood, urine) this is regarded as disgusting by practically everyone. I believe it to be an instinctive reaction shared across cultures; of course there is also risk of contagion to consider, so there is a biological side to this reaction.

<Homosexuality> cannot be called "natural" from a biological point of view but nonetheless it has existed through millenia across the globe. We have evidence that the perception of homosexuality differs greatly between ages and cultures, ranging from general acceptance to being downright illegal. We can therefore conclude that any aversion towards homosexuality is <cultural> rather than <instinctive> and as such an aversion we have been taught. In modern society, the existence of homosexuals does not impede anyone's life (at least no more than other groups), so there are no objective reasons for the aversion - correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe you are correct that some people consider homosexuals genuinely disgusting but this must be because they have been taught this. So this is similar to someone being disgusted by e.g. asparagus without ever having tasted it. There are no reasons for this except an unreflected acceptance of an arbitrary and groundless assumption.

So either the aversion comes from lack of reflection - or, and this was my initial point, it comes from fear. If one lives in an environment where homosexuality is considered a sign of weakness, then one will naturally be afraid to turn out to be one. Hence one shows over-aggressive aversion towards homosexuals, so as to appear less "homosexual". It is a kliché of course, but indeed repressed homosexuals are often the most vocal anti-homosexuals, and this is basically an expression of fear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aw...

Here's where your line of reasoning breaks down.

Consider this claim: <We have evidence that the perception of homosexuality differs greatly between ages and cultures, ranging from general acceptance to being downright illegal.>

You are speaking of an entire society in aggregate. If, say, you are referring to Iran as a place where it is illegal, what that means is a large enough sector of the Persian culture shares the view that it should be illegal, so it is. But I'm certain that some people in that culture strongly disagree with it being illegal.

And this lack of unanimity will be true for all cultures, with the only difference being the percentage who break to one viewpoint or another.

So your conclusion <We can therefore conclude that any aversion towards homosexuality is <cultural> rather than <instinctive> and as such an aversion we have been taught.> does not follow, because it assumes unanimity of viewpoints leads to how a culture handles the issue, which is false.

In fact, the evidence available indicates the indoctrination really only goes the other way. People are taught <not> to have an aversion, and it is a rather recent phenomenon.

An example: A few years ago there was a TV show about two White men (from England, IIRC) going to a jungle in South America to live with a primitive tribe of hunter-gatherers.

Once the chief was persuaded to let them live with the tribe, he tried to give them women (for sex), because (as one of the natives remarked) men need sex everyday. One of the English dudes was married, and they both declined the offer of women. The chief became suspicious that they might be homosexuals, and informed them it was prohibited, and they would be expelled from the tribe if they engaged in homosexuality.

You assert "we can therefore conclude" but I don't see how that conclusion necessarily follows. Homosexuality has always been taboo. Just because some culture long ago sank into moral degeneracy doesn't mean that homosexuality wasn't still considered taboo and wrong. I mean, there were cultures that sacrificed their infant children as burnt offerings to Molech too, but we know burning your children alive is unnatural, disgusting, taboo and horribly wrong - even though some cultures long ago did it.