Samuel writes...
No! Because I'm a white male. :P Okay, that's not the idea of this post.
I'm here to advertise quickly a book I'm about halfway through called Fatherless. Lemme give a quick history lesson.
Is America as profoundly the "best country" as it was? Heck, no! ...but why? If things were still being run the way they were with simple changes for new technologies, we would still be hangin' out on the top of the food chain. But that's slipping. This implies something changed. However, it isn't just the country's leadership and stuff that changed. The entire country has to change for so massive a slip as this (seriously, it's like tripping on the second to the top stair of the Sears Tower and falling back to the 50th floor -- major stuff here).
The book Fatherless details the time when I firmly believe this change happened. Though a fictitious novel, it is still historically correct. The whole scene occurs somewhere in the 1960's, when there was a plethora of "new evils" that we see being widely accepted today. This includes birth control pills, abortifacients, pay-to-watch programming along with cable in general ( at prime time, folks! -- but then you payed for it; now...), and a slew of other issues. All these were questioned and fought by the Catholic Church. Members of the Catholic Church sided with pleasure on most of these, and this tells of priests and the faithful in those times.
I'm no fan of slow-going, normal life novels. Really, I find them boring like nothin' else. However, if business was ever action-packed, and it is, this is where to find it.
"...This is storytelling at its heat pounding, page turning, masterful best..." -The Philadelphia Bulletin
"...A gripping and deeply moving read that is, at the same time, a hauntingly beautiful exploration of man, God, morality, faith and the Church in our contemporary world. Masterfully done..." - Roy Schoeman, author Salvation Is from the Jews
Note, some profanity and obscenity. Nothing alarming, though.
~Samuel
Showing posts with label biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biology. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Part 2 in the flame war! *yawr"*
Heheh...it's pretty funny where that last post went. That entire last paragraph was spent appeasing all the different "counter-arguments" I've gotten in response to that. The fact of the matter is, tough, that not a single person I've met has been able to deny (with a straight face) mankind's nature. All the people who were capable of that died along with G.K. Chesterton, whom I bet dragged them down with him. Anyways, back to attacking pleasure, the real epitome of America's downfall -- Rome is such a fun example, too bad Hitler didn't fall that way or we'd've never had this prablem.
Note, again there is some obscene language within this post that may offend anyone who reads, and again it is used in a perfectly appropriate way, so you'll only be offended by the language itself (which makes you sort of a sissy if you can't talk about it with a straight face).
Recap of what I have done:
Existence of non-arbitrary realities seperate from Humanity; sufficiently proven.
Existence of Moral Law; sufficiently proven.
Proof of Moral Law's non-arbitrary nature.
So! We now know that there is a set of laws that we are accountable to that tell us in all situations what we must or must not do. Heck, if you ever payed attention to yourself you'd be well aware its existence. So...what's at the bottom of this? Moral law has also been proven by my own worthy self that it is ingrained in our minds. Where's the problem? What happened? The ultimate answer to the existence of homosexuality is...! Porn. :O
Now, for some fun, non-theoretical, mostly scientific evidence that homosexuality is not only immoral, but that it is a mental and hormonal disorder...supported by the government, too. Dang, folks are out of whack. Aaaaanyways, what happens is whenever someone views *coughcough*pronz*coughcough* what happens is a gland in the endocrine system produces a hormone that causes a very special kind of excitement only found through sexual arousal. We all know that, though. :P Furthermore, at first this excitement is caused by viewing the opposite gender (in context). However, I've been informed by multiple sources (I'd never check out for myself) that much of it (*coughcough*pronz*coughcough*) contains photographs of both genders "in the act." Thank the thirteen-and-a-half dice gods that's all the obscene language I have to use for the rest of this post, since the rest of it is all endocrine and nervous systems. Suddenly, once this type of pronz is viewed, the glands in the endocrine system experience a sudden confusion. Which gender do they respond to when both are in the picture? Eventually, this question turns around into a completely skewed anser: it doesn't matter. Maybe, eventually, after viewing enough it's the opposite gender, since the viewing the female gets old or someat -- that reason belongs solely to the viewer, and could cover any number of excuses. Now some solid proof of this being the cause.
The homosexual agenda appeared sometime closely after the dawn of publicly-available photography. It expanded hugely with the dawn of the internet's capability to carry photographs. This ringin' any bells?
So, now we have proof that it is a hormonal disorder. I believe it was President Clinton that first pushed the agenda -- why? Because a GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual) organization of some form or another provided campaign money, and Clinton, of course, had to repay that, being the generous man he was. I am, of course, figuring this as a deduction from the dates of the dawn of the homo-revolution, not clearly printed facts, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
So...back to moral law briefly before I must face the fact I'm in a reality with homework. We are aware of its existence and we are aware of its non-arbitrary nature. If moral law is non-arbitrary, then it must be the same for every human being (mind you, it codes for different situations, not people). So in similar situations people therefore must do similar things (as per moral law, nowadays it's all about ethnicity). Furthermore, people are accountable to certain axioms of moral law. This all follows from the proven non-arbitrary nature thereof.
On society, it is the duty of people in a society to further society. How do we further a society? Grow it. It is the very nature of human beings to do so. Axioms of moral law dictate that everything has a center purpose, a special usefulness. In an action there is the action itself and the intent of what is necessary for the action. Hammers are for nails, that is their nature. The hammering of a nail is a moral action, since it follows the nature of the hammer. I can also use the hammer to fix my computer by striking it with hard blows multiple times. This may not follow the direct nature of the hammer, but it is still a moral action (unless it's a rage quit, of course ^-^). Same goes for gonads! Their nature is Male and Female, however they have no alternative use (the urethra is different, men). To do otherwise is a violation of the nature of tissues intended for sexual reproduction (abbreviated "sex"...ring any more bells? Sounds like a Church bell choir already!). Futhermore, homosexual "unions" are a violation of man's very nature as a social animal as they are incapable of furthering society by means of reproduction! Now even further, since the duty of people in a society is to further society, aka the center of society, the epitome of society is the family. Oh, look, Obama's ears are already gushing blood like Niagra Falls. Being the center of society, the family must therefore be the goal of members of a society.
So, what are the opposing arguments? I'm just insensitive! They're born that way! B S! there is no "gay chromosome" and there is no "gay hormone." We've already seen that it is a hormonal disorder! The fact of the matter is, the entire thing is purely against the nature of human beings and in opposition of moral law and a non-benefit of society, aka an anti-society agenda formed by lobbyists in DC as pork for an organization. I rest my case, and my loud mouth.
~Samuel Ignes Fox;
~Samuel Dobrozsi
Note, again there is some obscene language within this post that may offend anyone who reads, and again it is used in a perfectly appropriate way, so you'll only be offended by the language itself (which makes you sort of a sissy if you can't talk about it with a straight face).
Recap of what I have done:
Existence of non-arbitrary realities seperate from Humanity; sufficiently proven.
Existence of Moral Law; sufficiently proven.
Proof of Moral Law's non-arbitrary nature.
So! We now know that there is a set of laws that we are accountable to that tell us in all situations what we must or must not do. Heck, if you ever payed attention to yourself you'd be well aware its existence. So...what's at the bottom of this? Moral law has also been proven by my own worthy self that it is ingrained in our minds. Where's the problem? What happened? The ultimate answer to the existence of homosexuality is...! Porn. :O
Now, for some fun, non-theoretical, mostly scientific evidence that homosexuality is not only immoral, but that it is a mental and hormonal disorder...supported by the government, too. Dang, folks are out of whack. Aaaaanyways, what happens is whenever someone views *coughcough*pronz*coughcough* what happens is a gland in the endocrine system produces a hormone that causes a very special kind of excitement only found through sexual arousal. We all know that, though. :P Furthermore, at first this excitement is caused by viewing the opposite gender (in context). However, I've been informed by multiple sources (I'd never check out for myself) that much of it (*coughcough*pronz*coughcough*) contains photographs of both genders "in the act." Thank the thirteen-and-a-half dice gods that's all the obscene language I have to use for the rest of this post, since the rest of it is all endocrine and nervous systems. Suddenly, once this type of pronz is viewed, the glands in the endocrine system experience a sudden confusion. Which gender do they respond to when both are in the picture? Eventually, this question turns around into a completely skewed anser: it doesn't matter. Maybe, eventually, after viewing enough it's the opposite gender, since the viewing the female gets old or someat -- that reason belongs solely to the viewer, and could cover any number of excuses. Now some solid proof of this being the cause.
The homosexual agenda appeared sometime closely after the dawn of publicly-available photography. It expanded hugely with the dawn of the internet's capability to carry photographs. This ringin' any bells?
So, now we have proof that it is a hormonal disorder. I believe it was President Clinton that first pushed the agenda -- why? Because a GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual) organization of some form or another provided campaign money, and Clinton, of course, had to repay that, being the generous man he was. I am, of course, figuring this as a deduction from the dates of the dawn of the homo-revolution, not clearly printed facts, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
So...back to moral law briefly before I must face the fact I'm in a reality with homework. We are aware of its existence and we are aware of its non-arbitrary nature. If moral law is non-arbitrary, then it must be the same for every human being (mind you, it codes for different situations, not people). So in similar situations people therefore must do similar things (as per moral law, nowadays it's all about ethnicity). Furthermore, people are accountable to certain axioms of moral law. This all follows from the proven non-arbitrary nature thereof.
On society, it is the duty of people in a society to further society. How do we further a society? Grow it. It is the very nature of human beings to do so. Axioms of moral law dictate that everything has a center purpose, a special usefulness. In an action there is the action itself and the intent of what is necessary for the action. Hammers are for nails, that is their nature. The hammering of a nail is a moral action, since it follows the nature of the hammer. I can also use the hammer to fix my computer by striking it with hard blows multiple times. This may not follow the direct nature of the hammer, but it is still a moral action (unless it's a rage quit, of course ^-^). Same goes for gonads! Their nature is Male and Female, however they have no alternative use (the urethra is different, men). To do otherwise is a violation of the nature of tissues intended for sexual reproduction (abbreviated "sex"...ring any more bells? Sounds like a Church bell choir already!). Futhermore, homosexual "unions" are a violation of man's very nature as a social animal as they are incapable of furthering society by means of reproduction! Now even further, since the duty of people in a society is to further society, aka the center of society, the epitome of society is the family. Oh, look, Obama's ears are already gushing blood like Niagra Falls. Being the center of society, the family must therefore be the goal of members of a society.
So, what are the opposing arguments? I'm just insensitive! They're born that way! B S! there is no "gay chromosome" and there is no "gay hormone." We've already seen that it is a hormonal disorder! The fact of the matter is, the entire thing is purely against the nature of human beings and in opposition of moral law and a non-benefit of society, aka an anti-society agenda formed by lobbyists in DC as pork for an organization. I rest my case, and my loud mouth.
~Samuel Ignes Fox;
~Samuel Dobrozsi
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
But he's the first black president!
Honestly, I couldn't care less what his skin color is. Saying that is racist. I never want to hear it again.
I simply want to go over very briefly what skin color is down to the very molecules that make us, and why there's no difference, and why this shouldn't reflect an election.
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the stuff that codes for proteins, which is what we are made up of. DNA can code for proteins for things like eye color, how quickly your hair grows, hair color, or skin color. A chromosome is the state of DNA when it is tightly packed when a cell is ready to reproduce, usuqally in the shape of an "X". Quite nearlyalmostjustabout every cell in our body has two of all 23 (correct me if that's wrong...I'm going on memory here) chromosomes, every single one of them an exact copy. A section of any pair of chromosomes together is called a gene, a single of them is called an allele. Every gene codes for a protein.
Now that we have an idea for what DNA is, let's get reproduction down. In bisexual reproduction, two gametes meet and form a zygote. Each gamete has only 1 set of chromosomes (hence the "nearlyalmostjustabout" in the previous paragraph), so when the two gametes merge (a sperm and an egg), the new organism has two different sets of chromosomes coding for whatever the parents' did, but both of them! *g* Anyways, most of the time there is a dominant and recessive allele. So, let's say the allele for green eyes is dominant for the allele for blue eyes. That means, whenever just one of the parents has green eyes, the reproduced organism will. However, only if both have blue eyes will the reproduced organism have blue eyes. I don't know if that's the way it really is, it is merely an example. Don't take it for granted that everything I say in my examples is true. It's the overall message that counts, anyway.
There are a hundred different skin colors out there, and every one of them has a different coding. White people can have black kids, they just need to possess the genes for it, which is actually a semi-frequent occurance. It also works vice-versa, and in every other way possibly conceivable. Skin color doesn't change anything.
Sorry, but I have to define racism here. First off, what racism ISN'T!!!
Discrimination against people with black skin color.
I swear, everywhere I go, that's what people seem to think it is. I don't like that. That's not racism. That's not...moral. Discriminating against people with one tiny different gene, just a different skin color, is wrong. No matter what way you put it.
I hope I've helped heal some people. If there are any complaints about this post, I'd appreciate them a lot.
~Sam
I simply want to go over very briefly what skin color is down to the very molecules that make us, and why there's no difference, and why this shouldn't reflect an election.
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the stuff that codes for proteins, which is what we are made up of. DNA can code for proteins for things like eye color, how quickly your hair grows, hair color, or skin color. A chromosome is the state of DNA when it is tightly packed when a cell is ready to reproduce, usuqally in the shape of an "X". Quite nearlyalmostjustabout every cell in our body has two of all 23 (correct me if that's wrong...I'm going on memory here) chromosomes, every single one of them an exact copy. A section of any pair of chromosomes together is called a gene, a single of them is called an allele. Every gene codes for a protein.
Now that we have an idea for what DNA is, let's get reproduction down. In bisexual reproduction, two gametes meet and form a zygote. Each gamete has only 1 set of chromosomes (hence the "nearlyalmostjustabout" in the previous paragraph), so when the two gametes merge (a sperm and an egg), the new organism has two different sets of chromosomes coding for whatever the parents' did, but both of them! *g* Anyways, most of the time there is a dominant and recessive allele. So, let's say the allele for green eyes is dominant for the allele for blue eyes. That means, whenever just one of the parents has green eyes, the reproduced organism will. However, only if both have blue eyes will the reproduced organism have blue eyes. I don't know if that's the way it really is, it is merely an example. Don't take it for granted that everything I say in my examples is true. It's the overall message that counts, anyway.
There are a hundred different skin colors out there, and every one of them has a different coding. White people can have black kids, they just need to possess the genes for it, which is actually a semi-frequent occurance. It also works vice-versa, and in every other way possibly conceivable. Skin color doesn't change anything.
Sorry, but I have to define racism here. First off, what racism ISN'T!!!
Discrimination against people with black skin color.
I swear, everywhere I go, that's what people seem to think it is. I don't like that. That's not racism. That's not...moral. Discriminating against people with one tiny different gene, just a different skin color, is wrong. No matter what way you put it.
I hope I've helped heal some people. If there are any complaints about this post, I'd appreciate them a lot.
~Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
