Sunday, March 29, 2009

Liberal leftists and psycho-assertionism

I was contacted quite some time ago by a Singapore radical leftist liberal with the pseudonym Beast FCD. It seem that an impersonator had left a message on his guestbook, probably to get me into trouble. Anyway, he decided to browse through my blog, and soon decided to pick a fight with me over my biblical stance on homosexuality with this post. In this post of mine, I would not be addressing his post directly but show forth the bankruptcy of his entire epistemology, and prove that his position is merely a form of irrational psycho-assertionism.

In this post of his, Beast FCD (hereafter called BFCD) decided to attack me and Christians as being "gay-bashers", and have appointed himself to defend the homosexual cause against what he derogatorily calls "a religiously-manufactured manure". In what follows, we will deconstruct his article and expose it for what it is: a piece of irrational psycho-assertionism.

1. Logical fallacy of petitio principii

Besides the massive amount of ad-hominem argumentation in his argumentation, plus tactics of poisoning the well (which always shows that the argumentation is aiming for emotional impact rather than objective disputation), what is striking is the large number of the petitio principii logical fallacies committed in one short piece. BFCD merely asserts and asserts all manner of "facts" as if they are truisms. Here are some examples:

"... to support this dinosaur [S377a] from the colonial age."

Where in the article did BFCD proved that is it a dinosaur? He didn't, just asserted it was without any argumentation to show why this was the case.

"law based on discrimination and bigotry"

As usual, mere assertion without any proof why the law is based on discrimination and bigotry.

"Of course, the more enlightened folks amongst us will realize that general psychiatry no longer regards homosexuality with mental illness."

Who determines who or what is enlightened? As with regards to the American Psychological Association, first of all, why are they correct? Secondly, the facts of the case for why this is so speak for themselves:

On December 15, 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals. The homosexuals had begun to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals” (ibid.:88), with obvious implications. Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, they declared that homosexuality was no longer an illness.

The resulting referendum, demanded by outraged members of the association, was conducted by mail and was partially controlled by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Rueda:1982). The homosexualists won the vote and the new official definition of homosexuality as a disorder was changed to include only those who were “unhappy with their sexual orientation” (Adam:88). Historian Enrique Rueda writes,

This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself contradicts the essence of science (Rueda:106).

[Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika (Sacramento, CA, USA: Veritas Aeterna Press, 2002), p. 313]

Multiple other examples can be raised as examples of how BFCD merely asserts all manner of "facts" without proof. The fact of the matter is: BFCD is begging the question and making all kinds of claims of things to be true, of which he has not even bothered to show why this is so. As a point of fact, I deny all of his assertions, so he has to attempt to prove them first before they can even be considered to have any merit.

2. Fallacy of False analogy

During the course of his rant, BFCD compares homosexuality to slavery. Unfortunately, this is a false analogy since homosexuality is a choice while there is no choice in slavery. BFCD is on record as saying:

Like the anti-slavery campaigners that has [sic] preceded gay campaigners, gay advocates are not looking at enforcing a gay lifestyle on the general community. All they are asking for is to be treated equally, not to be treated like some slum-ghetto jerk or a lower caste of human beings destined to be trampled upon when it comes to living a normal, citizen's life. Homosexuals ask for the right to be treated fairly, the right to civil practices such as marriages, and the end of bigotry and intolerance towards gays. How is that for shoving "gayness" down the throats of every other boy, girl or child???

Now if we substitute homosexuality and its cognate words with beastiality and its cognate words, this is what we will get.

Like the anti-slavery campaigners that have preceded beastiality campaigners, beastiality advocates are not looking at enforcing a lifestyle of beastiality on the general community. All they are asking for is to be treated equally, not to be treated like some slum-ghetto jerk or a lower caste of human beings destined to be trampled upon when it comes to living a normal, citizen's life. Beastialists ask for the right to be treated fairly, the right to civil practices such as marriages, and the end of bigotry and intolerance towards beastialists. How is that for shoving "beastiality" down the throats of every other boy, girl or child???

One could always do the same for incest and pedophilia. Why limit oneself to homosexuality? If one objects to one and not the other (homosexuality), upon what basis can you say so?

Note also that all homosexuals have the right to marry; nobody is stopping them from marrying a person of the opposite gender. Homosexuals are similarly treated equally; homosexuals who take part in sodomy are treated the same as heterosexuals who take part in sodomy, so there is no discrimination at all! The fact of the matter is that homosexuals and their homosexualist allies want our approval for their sinful actions, and will not tolerate any dissent at all. That is why they invent such words as the misnomer of homophobia which is part of what I call WMEB (Weapons of Mass Emotional Blackmail). The double-standard of these homobigots are evident in that they demand that we must accept them, while they continually do not accept and attack us. If one wants to play the "phobia" game, why can't they be called "homophobe-phobes"? And those who oppose murderers are called "murderer-phobes", while those who support the killing of the unborn can be called "paedophobes" or "embryo-phobes"?

That the comparison between homosexuality and slavery is a false analogy can therefore be seen through this reductio ad absurdum. Just because something is opposed and criminalized does not make it bigotry, in the same way as the criminalization of murder does not make one a "murderer-phobe"! The reason why slavery was wrong was because it was proven objectively to be morally wrong. Homosexualist advocates however generally refuse to touch on the morality argument at all. Instead, they employ tactical WMEBs to hopefully smear their opponents into subjection, all the while asserting their cause to be right without any proof whatsoever.

3. Philosophical fallacy

Philosophically, BFCD's article can be said to suffer from the most basic of philosophical problems due to his failure to even attempt to discuss this from the ethical viewpoint: David Hume's is-ought fallacy. Even if BFCD's interpretations of the facts are correct (IS), that does not support his homosexualist position (OUGHT)! Of course, an ethical argument may not circumvent the is-ought fallacy, but failure to touch the ethical issues involved shows BFCD's article to be philosophical nonsense.

In point of fact, Hume's is-ought fallacy proves BFCD's article to be one big piece of psycho-assertionism, which we shall look at later.

4. Government legislation

BFCD incidentally mentions how government has "no legal basis for enforcing a religiously-slanted ruling ". However, he has no problems with government passing laws to promote homosexuality, which IS a anti-religiously-slanted ruling. This shows that BFCD and all homosexualists are actually not against government legislature that enforce [anti-]religiously-slanted ruling, but against government legislature that is against homosexuality. The hypocrisy in this is astonishing, seeing how the homosexualists desire to pass so-called "hate crimes" laws which are anti-religiously-slanted rulings used to persecute Christians. As it has been said before, only one [deviant] group allows itself to have all the rights to do what it wants including indoctrinating children in their lifestyles, while the civil and religious rights of all others must acquiesce to them! If that is not discrimination and bigotry, what is?

5. The issue of epistemology: Psycho-assertionism

In this last section deconstructing BFCD's article, we will go back to the issue of epistemology and metaethics. What is the epistemological foundation for all of BFCD's claims of facts? Why should anyone believe any of his propositions at all? Merely repeating it over and over again does not an argument make, and this is the fallacy of psycho-assertionism. BFCD has not shown why any of his axioms should be authoritative facts, instead using false appeals to authority, ad-hominem, and petitio principii fallacies to prop up his non-case. Even an argument from ethics was not attempted to try to avoid the is-ought fallacy, nevermind epistemology! What BFCD's argument boils down to therefore is "I say it, therefore it is right" type of argumentation.

Unlike the ipse dixit argumentation techniques of the liberal leftists in particular and secular humanists in general, Christians have an objective authoritative standard by which he can make a stand — in the Bible. The fact of the matter is that secular humanism has no standard upon which to pass judgment on any one issue. What it can do is assert all manners of stuff, but why should others follow them? The whole secular humanist pack of cards is reduced merely to subjective ipse dixit argumentation, and ultimately to a might-makes-right scenario.

In Christianity, Christians start off with the Word of God and its truths, which include God's Law as imperative commands (OUGHT). Therefore, Christians can rationally posit ethical rights and wrongs. BFCD being an atheist may very well choose to reject our starting axiom, but his epistemological foundations have no roots at all! Such being the case, how can he legitimately make all sorts of judgments on whether homosexuality or any issue is right or wrong since he has no epistemological and metaethical basis for doing so? Being impaled on Hume's is-ought fallacy, upon what basis can he even posit what state things "ought" to be?

In conclusion, BFCD's argumentation has been shown to a house of straw without any substance whatsoever, and this has not even address his outrageous statement that there are no persecutions of Christians in all but Muslim countries! (Even by his own faulty reasoning, is North Korea a Muslim country then?). BFCD's argumentation is totally irrational without any basis in fact, which is after all what all secular humanist arguments all show up to be, just that some are more sophisticated than others. BFCD and all atheists are exhorted to repent of their hatred of God and their irrationality, and turn to God for forgiveness of their sins.

Why will you die ... ? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live. (Eze. 18:32)

34 comments:

BEAST FCD said...

A whole lot of crap, as usual.

Since I have given you time to respond, I will ask you to give me some time to respond as well.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

North Korea doesn't specifically target Christianity......everyone who does not obey the commands of Kim are sent to concentration camps.
So, Christians are not picked upon specifically, and this includes China.

Muslim countries are a whole different kettle of fish: They will punish you for specific religious crimes, like converting to Christian, hence, there is specific persecution of Christians.

I hope that elucidates my point.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Oh shucks you are using the "Oh I am persecuted so!" argument again!

Who's persecuting you? Your maid? Lol! Give me a freaking break will ya???

Have you thought of a punishment for me yet? Oh maybe you just want the law to make all gay rights advocates to sit in Sunday school so that they can all be bored to death? Which is it, oh ye persecuted one?

Lol Lol

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

A whole lot of psycho-assertionism from you as usual. Let's see whether you can come up with anything of substance; arguments better than that of Dawkins would be good.

According to your idea of persecution, all murderers and pedophiles are persecuted too. Why don't you apply the same standard to your own arguments as use against others?

BEAST FCD said...

Of course murders and pedophiles are persecuted by the strong arm of the law. They break the law, hence, they deserve to be punished.

Your usage of the word "psycho assertion" is funny. What does it mean anyway?

Well, speaking of substance, you use the bible as a staging ground for basically all your arguments, which, to me, is of little substance whatsoever.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2009/03/homophobic-daniel-strikes-again.html

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

you call this a response? All you did was to repeat the same errors all over again, plus not even getting the arguments right. Let me guess: You did not study ethics or philosophy in any shape or form, right? (I did if you want to know)

More psycho-assertionism, ad-hominem, petitio principii and committing Hume's is-ought fallacy does not an argument made.

Your article is utterly irrational, especially since you did not address any of the epistemological issues I have raised, only addressing one or two surface issues which I will not rebut since you have already lost the main issues of epistemology and metaethics.

If this is all you liberals can come up with, your case is lost. May God open your eyes to see the errors of your ways and the irrationality of your thoughts.

For althugh they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, animals and creeping things. (Rom. 1:21-23)

PuritanReformed said...

Oh yes, one more thing: Don't raise the issues of certain churches like NEw Creation etc. They are a blight upon Christianity and I disown them. Regardless, that you use such examples means you have committed the fallacy of red herring.

BEAST FCD said...

I study ethics as a form of Science, and while I do indulge myself in a philosophy, such as Pascal's Wager, I am generally disinterested in philosophy pertaining to Christian theology.

Speaking of ad hominems, your arguments against gays are not much different; and referencing gays with murderers with pedophiles are just plain non-sequitors.

You also claim that psychology is being arm-wrestled into submission by the gay community without the research, and I have followed up with research papers detailing research all the way to 1975.

You claim that I am irrational; I merely look at things from a humanistic point of view. Your argument against gays are based on non-sequitors plus "the bible says so" argument. And when people criticize you for being homophobic you claim to be persecuted.

You can call New Creation Church anything you like. To me, you are no different from them.

You claim that I can't offer anything more; The truth is you have no ground to stand on other than the bible, which is a terrible source for moral quotes, as can be gleaned by the bible verses I have quoted.

Since you have nothing to rebut, I declare myself the winner of this round.



Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

You also placed a claim through Pink Swastika that there probably are threats being made against psychologists who had their lives threatened; I however can name you a gay who was killed by Christians who killed him for no other reason than the fact that he is gay.

You claim Christians are being persecuted for being anti-gay; truth is, Christians deserve to be criticized because they are not merely opposing gays; they launch anti-gay campaigns aimed at sowing hatred against gays. Matthew Shepherd's death is a direct result of Christian homophobia.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

you can declare yourself whatever you wish. The issue is you have not addressed any of the arguments except for the one on APA. Since you have not addressed any of them, it is self-evident that you are wrong, and you know it.

>Speaking of ad hominems, your arguments against gays are not much different;

I substantiate my points; you don't.

>referencing gays with murderers with pedophiles are just plain non-sequitors.

This shows you do not understand the argument. Did you actually READ the argument?

>I merely look at things from a humanistic point of view

Which you haven't proved is correct. I was attacking your humanist worldview as being flawed (which you obviously cannot see), and you have not even attempted to defend it at all.

>Your argument against gays are based on non-sequitors plus "the bible says so" argument

My argument is that homosexualists have no epistemological basis for any of their positions. Once again, did you actually READ my piece?

>And when people criticize you for being homophobic you claim to be persecuted.

Wrong! I claim that the term is a misnomer, and that you have epistemological basis foryour accusations. Again, did you actually READ what I have written?

>The truth is you have no ground to stand on other than the bible

The truth is, you have not READ any of my argument, only glanced through them. I am saying that you secular humanists have no ground to stand on other than your own or collective authority.

>as can be gleaned by the bible verses I have quoted

If you do not even understand how to interpret the Bible verses, stop trying. Your attempt is no different from anyone who rips things out of context to make them say whatever you want them to say. To your attempt, I will call "Misquote".

Inform me when you have at least understood my position. It is particularly revealing that you have not addressed David Hume's is-ought fallacy, which utterly destroy your argument before it takes off.

BEAST FCD said...

Post a reply or concede defeat. I will answer you back in return.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

>You also placed a claim through Pink Swastika that there probably are threats being made against psychologists who had their lives threatened; I however can name you a gay who was killed by Christians who killed him for no other reason than the fact that he is gay.

Even if what you say is true, and I will have to theck it out first if I want to take your argument seriously, the entire community is smeared by the action of a few? Furthermore, this is a red herring argument, as if two wrongs make one right.

>Christians deserve to be criticized because they are not merely opposing gays;

You mean like this? Who gave the homosexuals the rights to attempt to beat up Christians who were not doing anything but praying?

>they launch anti-gay campaigns aimed at sowing hatred against gays

You have not defined "anti-day", or "sowing hatred". As I have mentioned, unless you can defend homosexuality ethically, such accusations have no moral weight at all. You will agree that there is noting wrong with "launching anti-muderer campaigns aimed at sowing 'hatred' against murderers". The reason why this is ok is because murder is morally wrong. You have never even attempted to prove homosexuality is morally correct, and that was the entire point of my reductio ad absurdum which you seemingly are unable to comprehend one bit of.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

I am not interested in winning, but about being right. Since you have not even addressed the main argument of my post but instead go and chase butterflies, I rest my case. You can claim victory all your want, but for those with eyes to see, they will read and know the truth; that homosexualism and its ally secular humanism is bankrupt epistemologically and metaethically, at least as defended by you.

BEAST FCD said...

Actually, I do substantiate my points, including the "dinosaur" part which you completely misunderstand.

I understand what you are trying to say, linking gays with incest and pedophilia. But nonsequitor is still nonsequitor.

A humanist point of view will only be wrong if you are inhuman, because it takes into account the welfare of man. It is definitely better than a god centred world view.

This epistemological bullshit is just smoke screen to obscure the fact that you have no other stance towards homophobia other than epistemology from your pathetic bible.

With regards to the bible, please do not tell me I do not know the bible. I probably know the bible better than you.

Finally, post a reply or concede defeat. I don't want to waste time with pusillanimous homophobs like you.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Since you claim that gays are immoral, the onus is for you to claim that gays are immoral. You have done absolutely nothing to prove that beyond religion, which itself is a terrible institution for morality to begin with.

BEAST FCD said...

Ok, dorkie, if you insult someone in public, and you get bashed, then you have to be partly responsible for it.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

>Actually, I do substantiate my points, including the "dinosaur" part which you completely misunderstand.

No, you didn't. What you did was to describe why you called it a dinosaur, which I do know. What you didn't do was to show why it should be a dinosaur. Money has a very long history, yet it is not a dinosaur, so your "argument" proves nothing.

>I understand what you are trying to say

No, you don't. If you do, you will engage the real argument, not misrepresent me as saying that homosexuality = muder = incest = beastiality.

>A humanist point of view will only be wrong if you are inhuman, because it takes into account the welfare of man

That is what you assert which have no proof. I categorically deny that a humanistic point of view takes into account the welfare of man. Welfare as determined by who? Hitler thought he was promoting the welfare of man by culling the weak, Lenin and Stalin too. Ever heard of Social Darwinism?

>This epistemological bullshit is just smoke screen to obscure the fact that you have no other stance towards homophobia other than epistemology from your pathetic bible.

Why don't you just save everyone the trouble and tell us that homosexuality is right because Beast FCD the pope of Secular Humanism says it? All your assertions have no basis whatsoever in anything but yourself.

>With regards to the bible, please do not tell me I do not know the bible. I probably know the bible better than you

Question: How many Christian books have you published?

PuritanReformed said...

>Since you claim that gays are immoral, the onus is for you to claim that gays are immoral. You have done absolutely nothing to prove that beyond religion, which itself is a terrible institution for morality to begin with.

I base my claim of immorality on epistemology. Weren't you reading? Your epistemology is a house of straw without substance.

PuritanReformed said...

>Ok, dorkie, if you insult someone in public, and you get bashed, then you have to be partly responsible for it.

Try that in a lawcourt, and see what happens.

Accused: Judge, the reason why I assaulted him is because he insulted me in public.

BEAST FCD said...

Bible books come at a dime a dozen.....I used to read them when I was in church years ago, frankly they are just crap.

Certain things have a long history, that's right, but I was not talking about money, I was talking about 377A. It is a remnant of the old British Empire, and basically is irrelevant.

It is not what I say: It is based on the fact that homosexuality harms no one, legally and ethically speaking.

Frankly, I'd rather have "what beast says" than what the bible says. Cos its a load of crap.

And please do not tell me that Darwinism is the sole reason for Hitler's deeds. If you do not understand evolution maybe you should stick to biblical nonsense instead, all the better for me to thrash you.

Post a reply on your blog or admit defeat.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"I base my claim of immorality on epistemology. Weren't you reading? Your epistemology is a house of straw without substance."

Correction. You base your epistemology on the bible. So. Its the bible. No substance.

BEAST FCD said...

Ok, dorkie, if you insult someone in public, and you get bashed, then you have to be partly responsible for it.

Try that in a lawcourt, and see what happens.

Accused: Judge, the reason why I assaulted him is because he insulted me in public.

Fair enough. But some things are based on practicality: If you are stupid enough to insult muslims in a mosque, and you get killed, then you pay the price for being stupid. No doubt the murderer is guilty, but you could have avoided instigating it in the first place.

BEAST FCD said...

"That is what you assert which have no proof. I categorically deny that a humanistic point of view takes into account the welfare of man. Welfare as determined by who?"

Welfare as dictated by practicality, humane thinking and of course, helped along by a healthy dose of democracy and folks who are educated to care for one another.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

you are certainly welcomed to claim victory, but I will not concede defeat. I will let God and the world judge. May God open your eyes and grant you the gift of repentance for your sin.

BEAST FCD said...

Last ultimatum:

Post a rebuttal or bow down in defeat.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Well if you do not reply, you lose by default, and I win by virtue of my superior thinking and argument.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

BTW:

I renounced the holy spirit long ago. According to the bible, anyone who does that has no recourse to salvation. I have, so to speak, burned my Christian bridges long ago.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

>Welfare as dictated by practicality, humane thinking and of course, helped along by a healthy dose of democracy and folks who are educated to care for one another.

Please define all these terms: "practicality", humane thinking", "healthy doese of", "democracy", "care". Please define them epistemologically, not through a dictionary which is basically an exercise in tautology.

BEAST FCD said...

Lol. That will be long winded, and frankly speaking, I am not fond of splitting hairs.

We know what these words mean, but, as I have said, I am not particularly fond of philosophers who rant all day but don't really make any more than a single point.

If I need to spend time elucidating words like empathy, democracy, etc, I'd be a philosophy professor.

That said, it doesn't mean that I don't understand these words in a proper context. I am just not bored enough for such endeavors and semantics.

Simply argue to the point and be done with it.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2008/09/lesson-in-piety-story-of-job.html

Try reading this.

BEAST FCD said...

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2008/10/biblical-odyssey-wanton-sperm-spills.html

And this.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD;

You call that "bible lessons"? It is very obvious that you have no regard whatsoever of the theological context of the passages.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18)

BEAST FCD said...

Why don't you try to dissect it, genius?

Beast FCD