No, of course not.

<How do you differentiate between a terrorist and someone exercising their first amendment rights when there are thousands of people in the streets?>

You are REALLY asking this? The answer is simple and obvious:

<Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.>

If people are peaceably assembling, for a redress of grievances, it is very very different from violent revolutionaries, and thugs, and rioting and looting and killing.

You are seriously asking me how to differentiate???

Please tell me you were only trolling, and that you have enough common sense to see the difference!

<Due process protects people on both sides of the political spectrum exercising their right to peaceably assemble. Are you saying you want that right to be abrogated?>

OK, the answer is that you were trolling.

Now, click on this link:

https://anncoulter.com/2020/07/22/d...

Don't worry, there will be no viruses or malware. Simply lots of links from a resident of Portland, showing video that refutes your delusion.

What delusion? Your delusion that your side is only peaceably assembling.

At this point, you only fit in one of three categories.

1. Ignorance: You are ignorant of the violence that has swept the nation, perpetrated by your side almost exclusively.

2. Deception: You are aware of the violence from your side, but throw up BS narratives that <both sides of the political spectrum (are) exercising their right to peaceably assemble.>

< Big Pawn:

Looks like <wtpy> got caught doing the Liberal Lie. Let's see if he met <tga's> challenge.

<TGA, Is everyone on the street a terrorist?>

Nope! >

...I posted this: <<<< wtpy: TGA, Is everyone on the street a terrorist?>>>

No, of course not. >

So it happens that I agree with <BP> on this point (and also <wtpy>, obviously).

And probably many others agree, even across the political spectrum. Seems like we can <all> agree that not everyone on the street is a terrorist.

<Beep> you've no idea. The smoke was so thick today it almost blocked out the sun. I didn't need my sunglasses at all.

On top of that, arsonists are being arrested throughout Oregon. About a dozen last count. Farmers have organized and are rapidly deploying teams to investigate, as reported by a nature photographer on Gab.

CuckBook and Twatter are moving hard to suppress the discussion. What discussion? People are wondering if it is Antifa starting the fires, that was the discussion.

<Are you saying you want that right to be abrogated?>

No, duh. Where did I say that? Nowhere.

Or, should I say, "I did not say anything of the kind, you shameless troll"?

Perhaps I should have written: <Debating libs is like shooting <<<Trolls>>> in a barrel.>

Such a shame.>

I said absolutely nothing out of line. She knows it. I challenged her to show my kibitz and see what everyone else thought, and that nobody would agree with her. She deleted that!

The original post cited <Stonehenge>, <tabanus>, <JFQ>, <FSR>, <Phony Benoni>, <hemy>, and <Miss Scarlett> and all they give to the site. They might want to reconsider if one person on a whim can threaten to remove them.

OK, haven't read everything below but here goes: <Big Pawn: If you don't want to pick up a fresh hot turd with your bare hands, it is because you find it <disgusting>, not because you are afraid of the turd. > There is a reason that humans find faeces disgusting; it is to prevent us from the bacteria and parasites it may contain. So it represents a <threat> to us as an organism.

There is no such reason for finding homosexuals disgusting, and while homophobia (I am now using this term to describe a general aversion againts homosexuals) is and has been widespread, homosexuality has also been acceptable in many societies throughout history. It follows that homophobia is a social construct as I have already argued. The factor behind this is the same as with any type of disgust: That the object of disgust represents a threat.

Now we can see that institutional homophobia (i.e. legislation and similar) occurs in societies where apparently homosexuality has been seen as a threat, more specifically it is implemented in Medieval Europe. Homosexuality is here seen as a threat against the established order in which especially the Church holds a powerful position. A very similar aversion is introduced against the claim that Earth is orbiting the Sun instead of vice versa.

So if one feels disgust for homosexuals today, it is - like any type of disgust - because they are seen as a threat. I do not know what kind of threat people see them as, but obviously the deeper the disgust, the bigger the threat. And I would logically argue that the presence of a big threat is linked to fear.

As I also grant you above, it could be that the disgust is simply the unreflected acceptance of Medieval teachings (does anyone in here believe the Sun is orbiting the Earth?).

I answered a bunch of your points, so to keep them from getting lost in the shuffle, I went back and numbered the points so that you may address them all and move your narrative forward.

1. You need to prove that homophobia exists, that it's real, if you are going to use the word here because I reject it outright, and if your response hinges upon this word or the concept it stands for, then your entire response misses the mark.

A phobia is an illogical, irrational, exaggerated fear of something. You need to make your case that I fear homosexuality, as I challenged you before, but as before, you admitted that you couldn't do that.

This doesn't leave you with much.

2. Homosexuality is disgusting and it has always been taboo. When it was practiced in ancient times, the empires and cultures that practiced it fell, and they are commonly described as cultures and empires that had suffered great moral decay, and because of this moral decay, they rotted from the inside out.

3. If you find a fresh turd disgusting, then you should find homosexuality disgusting. Men stick their penises up each other's asses. You know what is up there, and it gets all over their penises. That is the essence of disgusting.

<Troller>, I point you to this study:

<Straight men’s physiological stress response to seeing two men kissing is the same as seeing maggots>

https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/str...

<In heterosexual men, pictures of rotting flesh, maggots and spoiled food induce the same physiological stress response as pictures of two men kissing each other. That is the surprising finding that was recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Psychology & Sexuality.>

4. Furthermore, if, as you say, humans see turds as a <threat> (your word) and they fear <threats>, then by your logic, one <should> fear homosexuality, but in that case, it wouldn't be unjustified, irrational or exaggerated, but warranted.

5. <So if one feels disgust for homosexuals today, it is - like any type of disgust - because they are seen as a threat.>

Repeating this doesn't make it true. You already conceded that it doesn't logically follow, so it seems you have nowhere to go and no way to strengthen your argument or more your narrative forward. You need to bring something <new> to this statement if you want to move your narrative forward.

6. <Can you explain why you find homosexuals disgusting? You compared it with the disgust for faeces; but indeed here there is a perfectly valid reason for our disgust (which, as opposed to disgust for homosexuals, is universal), so the comparison does not stand.>

I did this already, above. Disgust can be felt toward something that is egregiously immoral. For instance, if you saw someone in person that you know molested little toddlers for many years and finally got caught, it would be natural to look upon him with disgust. Homosexuality has caused disgust for millennia for this same reason.

Disgust can also arise when someone experiences something extremely unpleasant. Some people find it utterly disgusting to eat wet bread. Others find it disgusting to hear you slowly crunch a big insect under your heel. Some people find anchovies disgusting and if they watch you eat them, they're grossed out. In the same way, homosexuality causes disgust.

I do not feel threatened by homosexuals. I find them immoral and disgusting.

7. However, homosexuality is bad for society and that hurts everyone. AIDS is a homosexual disease and it kills more people than COVID-19, yet the libs haven't made homosexuality illegal or closed the bathhouses to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Children of homosexual parents suffer tragically.

Homos themselves suffer severe psychological problems like depression and have a high suicide rate.

Homos are likely to rape boys because they are out of control regarding their impulses and passions. When the Catholic Church decided to let the homos into the priesthood, they ended up with widespread pedophilia, with gay priests raping the boys all over the world.

This doesn't leave you with much. > OK, switch "homophobia" with "aversion against homosexuals".

<So if you knew it wouldn't make you sick, you'd eat a fresh hot turd?> But it does, and hence we have an instinctive aversion. It does not compare.

<Some people find it utterly disgusting to eat wet bread. Others find it disgusting to hear you slowly crunch a big insect under your heel. Some people find anchovies disgusting and if they watch you eat them, they're grossed out. In the same way, homosexuality causes disgust.> I understand this. I am not challenging the fact that you feel disgusted by homosexuals. I am asking <why>? And is there a rational explanation apart from the Church telling you so?

I believe disgust can be instinctive (one that serves us biologically) or cultural (social construct or caused individually by some event, like e.g. real phobias can develop). If I felt irrational disgust or fear, I would reflect upon the origins of this.

<7. However, homosexuality is bad for society and that hurts everyone....> Thanks. This would be the <rational> arguments against homosexuality. I do not agree with all your points here (the last one about NAMBLA I have absolutely no clue about, from what you write it seems harmless but I suppose there is more to the story). Regarding the Catholic scandal, I would say this is indeed a <Catholic> scandal directly linked to the celibacy vow.

http://americandigest.org/of-forest...

<Troller>, I will address the points in your post and not try to divert or misdirect the debate, thus sticking to the <central points>, but before I do, I want to point out that I made 8 points (numbered) that touched base on all of the points you've put forth. I was expecting you, who I consider to be an order of magnitude greater than the infamous Rogoff Libs, to neatly address all 8 of those points, attempt to refute each one of them, and then erect arguments for the negation of those 8 points in their place. As it is right now, those points that you have not responded to are considered dropped.

I answered this question and you did not respond to my answers. I think in this case your question is rhetorical, meaning, you are trying to make it clear to me that you have now switched the emphasis from the <claim> that aversion to homosexuality is not normal (it's a phobia) and that it <must> be <fear-based>, to merely asking me personally why I find homosexuality disgusting.

Let us take a moment to get organized in this discussion and make sure we are both aware of what the <central points> are.

Your <central point> was that my condemnation and aversion to homosexuality and my disgust at homosexuality must be <fear-based> and that the fear is not warranted. This means that the homosexuals are normal and I'm not, because I have a phobia, and phobias are by definition not normal.

I challenged you to prove this and demonstrate logically how this follows necessarily to which you conceded the point to me in our first go around. Then you insisted on running with this point once more, even though you conceded the point on logical and rational grounds. I responded to all of your points and numbered my refutations to keep it clear. You left almost all of it untouched.

We are now done with that debate and we've move on from debate to discussion. The debate is over and now you want to know why I find homosexuality disgusting.

I've laid this all out because I want to be clear and get your confirmation, because if you disagree with this summary, then I want to go back over the points and have you answer them all so we can stay in this debate and iron out all the areas of disagreement. If you agree with my summary, then we can move on to your question about if I think homosexuality is a condition, like red hair etc..., and if my disgust at homosexuality is because of the Church or something else.

<Senators Demand Netflix CEO Pull Film ‘Cuties’: ‘Child Actors Made to Perform Simulated Sex Acts’>

https://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bann...

It's so bad that now the Senators are calling for Netflix to pull the film. You know it's bad when the Senators think so, because most of them have no moral at all.

Fact is, libs love sexualizing little kids. Whether it's homosexual priests raping the boys, or homosexual scout leaders raping the Boy Scouts in their tents at night (you all do remember when the homosexuals forced themselves on the Boy Scouts, right?), or the new pedophile-friendly bill that just passed in California.

<California Democrats introduce bill to protect pedophiles who lure and sexually abuse innocent children>

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1486...

I guess the libs figure if they can't kill them in the womb, they might as well f*** them up the ass and destroy them when they're all of 9 or 10 years old.

<1> I think I answered. Indeed homophobia is an inaccurate term.

<2. Homosexuality is disgusting and it has always been taboo. When it was practiced in ancient times, the empires and cultures that practiced it fell, and they are commonly described as cultures and empires that had suffered great moral decay, and because of this moral decay, they rotted from the inside out.>

All ancient cultures and empires have fallen. This is a completely different discussion but you will not find many serious historians attributing the entire fall of a culture to the practise of homosexuality.

<3. If you find a fresh turd disgusting, then you should find homosexuality disgusting. Men stick their penises up each other's asses. You know what is up there, and it gets all over their penises. That is the essence of disgusting.

<Troller>, I point you to this study: >

I saw the study. I do not say that the disgust does not exist, I am saying it is a social construct. Triggered reactions can be taught, like Pavlov's dogs (or, more radically, like in Clockwork Orange).

A doctor (and a midwife) sticks his finger up people's rectums. I do not for that reason find doctors disgusting.

<4. Furthermore, if, as you say, humans see turds as a <threat> (your word) and they fear <threats>, then by your logic, one <should> fear homosexuality, but in that case, it wouldn't be unjustified, irrational or exaggerated, but warranted.> Yes indeed. So the question is, how are homosexuals a threat to me in todays' world?

<5>
Our biological reason for disgust is to shield us from threats. If the disgust is instinctive, most likely it is to prevent us from contagion of some sort. But disgust can be a conditioned response as well; in that case someone has identified the object as something unwanted, i.e. a threat. It follows that in the latter case the threat is against the agent seeking to induce the conditioned response.

<6> There is no common definition of something <egregiously immoral>. Morality is always in flux, although some biological traits like taking care of children (as otherwise our species would fail, children being dependent on adults for several years) is often seen as morality. Some people will say it is immoral to condemn homosexuals!

To elaborate on the second point of <6>, I do not consider disgust for anchovies as really comparable; this is really a <dislike> (TGA may leave a restaurant because of a homosexual waiter; would he leave it, if he knew there were anchovies in the kitchen?)

<7> <AIDS is a homosexual disease>. Here I can nitpick as well: there is no such thing as a homosexual disease. AIDS is a venereal disease and as such tends to spread especially among what used to be called promiscuous people (I suspect there is a politically correct term for this but we all know what I mean). If you mean that only homosexuals get AIDS, then how come 48% of newly infected people are women? (https://www.unaids.org/en/resources...)

The poster's name is "Red-State Secession"

<Red-State Secession

If we retrench to a position of strength, as shown on my videos, we can preserve traditional values and liberty. And it makes no sense to try to keep all 50 states just to get outvoted again in the next election. Some argue for removing the right to vote from certain populations, but I don't think that's sustainable in the long term, or worth the effort of subjugation. And the Left has a lot of power in institutions. We need to leave some territory for them. We can use state power to eject Leftists from red-state "domestic" institutions and treat blue state "foreign" media as foreign.>

I've expressed similar ideas here and so has <TGA>, but it's not an easy decision to make. When a child throws himself on the floor at the market and throws a tantrum, stamping his hands and feet against the floor, screaming, making a scene, is it right to give into him and buy him the sugar cereal he wants?

Is it right to give large portions of the country to the libs just because they're throwing a tantrum? That land is valuable and good people died fighting for it. Shall their sacrifice be for nothing?

Should we have a civil war where we can kill tens of millions of libtard marxist scum? Is that really the best choice?

Or perhaps only the radical leaders of the true anti-American, terrorist Antifa and BLM types, the people in leadership roles who both radicalize and mobilize the low IQ libtards should be targeted? The idea being that the sheep will de-radicalize for the most part once their radical leaders are killed. The sheep will fall back into the fold, get to work, start families and return to something resembling normal.

Right now there seems to be three possible outcomes from our current situation.

1. For some unexplained reason, the antifa and blm terrorist libs just pick up their tents, their firebombs, guns and go home happily to get back to regular life.

2. We enter a civil war where many millions of people on both sides likely die, and countless innocent victims are brutalized, tortured, raped and killed as casualties of war.

3. A few thousand marxist terrorist lawless anti-American, revolutionary radicals in leadership positions are put to the sword before a real civil war can be organized, stomping it out early.

1. <Indeed homophobia is an inaccurate term.>

Okay.

2. <but you will not find many serious historians attributing the entire fall of a culture to the practise of homosexuality.>

That is a strawman because my argument was not that the <entire> fall of a culture was due to the practice of homosexuality.

3. < I do not say that the disgust does not exist, I am saying it is a social construct.>

I'm awaiting your arguments based on logic, reason and evidence that prove disgust is not instinctive or inherent and <must> be a social construct. You shoulder this burden of proof because of your claim.

<A doctor (and a midwife) sticks his finger up people's rectums. I do not for that reason find doctors disgusting.>

This is not consistent with your explanation that we <must> fear feces because we are hardwired to know that it is dangerous to us.

To address this point from another angle, you may not find <doctors> disgusting, but you should find the act of sticking a finger up someones rectum disgusting.

However, homos aren't just sticking fingers up there. They stick their penises up there. There's a big difference!

Furthermore, as I explained in my prior post, disgust can arise from being aware of or experiencing something egregiously immoral, and the doctor scenario lacks this aspect. For these reasons, I think your analogy fails to help support the conclusion you prefer.

5. <Our biological reason for disgust is to shield us from threats.> Well, you haven't given any evidence that disgust is "biological." If disgust springs from a cellular level, from the DNA level, then it is not a matter of learned behavior, which is what you argued prior. That's one problem with this angle in point 5. You say disgust can be both biological and conditioned and or instinctive. So that kind of undoes all this work you're putting into it to show that disgust is a social construct. As you just said, it can be for any reason.

My brother truly finds all seafood disgusting. His disgust toward seafood is passionate. When he smells fish, his face contorts with disgust. This is obviously not threat based. In science, we look for a single defeater to falsify a premise. This falsifies your premise that disgust is threat based.

<<6> There is no common definition of something <egregiously immoral>.>

There doesn't need to be.

<I do not consider disgust for anchovies as really comparable; this is really a <dislike> (TGA may leave a restaurant because of a homosexual waiter; would he leave it, if he knew there were anchovies in the kitchen?)>

Just because one reaction to something disgusting is not the same as another reaction to something different that is disgusting, does not mean that only one of those things can be disgusting. We can have different reactions based on the level of offense which causes the disgust.

For instance, if you were about to eat your food and then realized the restaurant was infested with cockroaches and you notice roach turds on your plate and table, you may get up and leave the restaurant, disgusted.

<<7> <AIDS is a homosexual disease>. Here I can nitpick as well: there is no such thing as a homosexual disease. AIDS is a venereal disease and as such tends to spread especially among what used to be called promiscuous people >

No, AIDS is firmly in the homosexual community. In the 1980s, the politically correct people were trying to say it's not a homo disease because everyone can get it. They said that in the future, it would be spread out among the population evenly. That did not happen. AIDS is firmly in the homosexual community, concentrated there strongly.

Yeah, it spreads from them to the regular folks because homos have sex with regular people too, which is why homosexuality is dangerous to society.

Would you like to look at the statistics with me and see who's right?

It's about Jesus choosing the 12 disciples and it's fantastic!

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

That's the playlist for the first 8 episodes.

Each video starts with a talk from the producer and he explains what his angle was for each episode and why he did it the way he did. That's pretty interesting, but I got so caught up in the series that I would just skip past that part and get right to the beginning of the episode.