Following up on Part 2, here are some more exchanges…

John, those who produce and consume porn are engaging in a private, legal activity that is none of my business and none of your business. To conflate child porn with legal porn is akin to conflating sex between two consenting adults and sex between a 40-year-old and a 12-year-old. I know you see the distinction, so why even mention child porn?

Oh, I beg to differ, Rob.  This is the same kind of thinking that produced abortion on demand, same-sex “marriage”, and soon-to-be legalized euthanasia in this country.  In short order, it will also be the proud sponsor of the legalization of bestiality too (provided of course you can get the approval of the horse and somehow fit him into the bedroom). Other “consensual” adventures, currently beyond my imagination, will also follow, along with the complete disintegration of our society. 

There is no such thing as “private sin”, Rob.  Eventually, it all comes out.  Sodomy started that way.  You know the score, I’m sure.  Pierre Trudeau told us that whatever two consenting adults decide to do in their bedroom was fine by him — as long as they kept it in the closet.  40 years later, everything’s out of the closet, and the State is doing its part to force citizens to comply with recognition of sexual anarchy.  Same thing goes for porn, Rob. Do you really expect me to believe that child porn is not merely the daughter of its conventional mother? Give me a break. Porn is an addiction which keeps many of its victims coming back for the next “big hit”, not unlike the druggie.  In many cases, the druggie needs to keep coming back for the next bigger, more exciting hit.  For him, it means the next drug up the chain and so on and so on.  For porn addicts, a large population of them graduate too - to the “unspeakable, forbidden porn”.  Or perhaps you will have us believe that one day a guy is watching Beaver Cleaver and the next he’s watching a 5 year old being sodomized?  Please.  Let’s get real.

You are a Trudeaupian, Rob.  Plain and simple.  Canada before Trudeau was far more “democratic” and “freedom loving” than it is today, and yet Canadians had a vastly different view of what true freedom was since they actually bled and died for it.  Debbie Does Dallas was not what they died for, Rob.  And my children certainly won’t be volunteering to die for a perverse culture which thinks that she should.  During those days, they weren’t masturbating away their existence in some narcistic stupor, demanding that everyone recognize their obvious romp into oblivion.  They knew very well that it constituted nothing less than foolish self destruction.  It’s very hip, I have no doubt, for you to pick on “religious conservatives” for being so dogmatic, but it’s quite another thing to lump Canada before Trudeau into your criticism.  Why don’t you make fun of those fuddie duddies before Trudeau, Rob?  I think we both know the answer to that, don’t we?  It’s much easier to pick on the new niggers in Canada than it is to be consistent in your application of those who think your view of freedom is in the gutter along with the porn that you pimp for.

Let me also take a shot at your view of ethics, Rob.  It’s clear to me in what I’ve read from you that you think that “consent” should be the overriding principle in ordering our society.  That fits right into your distorted view of freedom (which is really “license” since it has no moral boundaries).  Let’s take a couple of examples.

1) Divorce.  We don’t think of divorce as child abuse, do we? But we should because it’s the biggest and most substantial form of it going around today.  We’ve been conditioned by the sexual autocrats of our age to believe it’s just a normal part of life, but the very sad reality is that it has produced untold and unspeakable pain against the children who have suffered through it. The spiritual and emotional pain are simply a reflection of the wreckage that it has wrought on our society in very concrete terms.  But, you know, “we all gotta be free; we all got to be me”.  We all have the “right to make choices” and break our vows and our words.  Why do I bring this up?  Only to show you that someone’s “freedom” is another’s internal self destruction.   You speak of freedom in a way that has no moral boundaries or responsibilities, yet as we see in the case of divorce where children are involved at least, that’s one big fat lie.  Why do you suppose that free speech is any different? 

2) Consent.  Do you support polygamy, Rob?  You have to, I suppose, since consent appears to be the principle of your ethics.  What about polyandry? Swingers? Orgies? Is it all good for you, is it?  You see, Rob, the problem with libertarians is that they don’t have any real ethics or balls, for that matter.  If you put them back in the 19th century American South, they have no problem with slaves being slaves as long as they consented to it.  And many of them would have consented to it, since they knew nothing else in their lives.  A libertarian would not fight to free them, or to show them a better way.  They would not try to reveal to them that they had intrinsic dignity as human beings created by God. Or to tell them that no man could own another. (And no woman can “own” her unborn child).  They’d just sit there and help perpetuate the lie of slavery, allowing them to settle for their ignorance, because everything was by “consent”.  In fact, Rob, in theory, a libertarian wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever with whole populations or even cultures collectively committing suicide.  Because, you know, it’s all about consent.

And speaking of consent, are you really so naive to believe that a culture whose highest aspiration is to have a sterile orgasm will not have huge problems in its future?  I’m not talking “pie in the sky?” problems, Rob, I’m talking real “meat and potatoes” problems — like health care, pension costs, labour pools, economic contraction, and sovereignty issues. We are a culture that thinks that jacking off into a condom after having false sterile sex with their girl friend won’t have dire consequences for our culture.  No kids? No future. So much for sex being a “private” affair.  If it’s such a private affair, how is it that if you don’t have the right kind of sex – the sex that actually produces, you’re heading for national oblivion?  You see, Rob, you’ve been duped by Trudeaupia. That’s not my opinion, Rob, that’s a fact.  The West is dying.  That’s because of the false, sterile sexual appetities that you are defending. In the end, if our opinions don’t line up with reality, then they’re not worth much, are they?  Yours don’t line up with what’s going on, Rob. Mine do. 

If the government sought to silence a religious TV network, I’d be as outraged as you. I’d likely not be watching Fundamentalist TV, nor will I be watching Northern Peaks. I’m opposed to censorship, which is what supporting free speech really means. You say “Amazingly, there was a time when Canada did not accept pornography or abortion or homosexual imperialism or even contraception.” Well not everyone does, I suppose. Perhaps Sharia law provides the answer then: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/016913.php

Rob, you’re speaking like the liberal fool who points to one religion as representative of them all.  Sharia is not Christianity and Christianity is not Sharia.  Islam is a false religion and Muhammed was a false prophet.  There are people who understand what is at stake for the West. Mark Steyn is one of them. He explained the nuts and bolts of it in his book, America Alone.  Let me give you a few excerpts:

Appeasement is a vote to live in the present tense, to hold the comforts of the moment. To fight for king and country is to fight for the future. But a barren society has no future, and so what’s to fight for?” (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.37)

This is why countries that fall into this model don’t care about defense and care even less about having children. National Defense means losing comforts. It means sacrificing part of the huge social programs they have come to expect, to be entitled to. And children? Too expensive. Too much of a drag. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p45-55)

Her Majesty’s chilly Dominion is the land where straights live in comon-law partnerships and the gays get married. And the upshot is: America’s fertility rate is 2.11; Canada’s is 1.48. And where does that lead? Canucks are aging faster than the Yanks. In 2000, oldsters formed 16.3% of America’s population and 17% of Canada’s-close enough. In 2040, they’ll form 26% of America’s population and 33.3% of Canada’s. (Mark Steyn, America Alone, p.55)

Mark Steyn certainly tells us about the demographic decline facing the West and the rise of Islam, but he doesn’t connect the dots back to sexual morality and responsibility.  I’m not sure why he doesn’t do it – at least not sufficiently enough in my opinion.  But I’ll tell you that I don’t give a damn about any politically correct barometer, and I’ll tell you straight up that contraception and abortion are kiling us, along with all of the toys that come along with it like, for instance, porn.  We live in DEMOCRACIES, Rob. That means, votes count. That means you need more people who oppose Sharia than support it, but when I look at the sexual proclivities of the porn patrons you pimp for, I see lots of sterile sex – you know, the “barren society” Steyn talks about above. But I don’t see that with the Muslims, particularly the “Sharia is Us” crowd.   If you want to read about more stats on the West’s impending population implosian, click here.  Are you seeing where this is going, Rob, or do I have to draw you a picture?   Here’s the picture, Rob:

Here’s something else for you to clue into.  I get the impression that you are not exactly proficient in biblical history.  Not a problem.  I’ll fill you in here on the relevant point.  The ancient Jews wanted “freedom” too. They wanted to be free from God, His laws, and His truth.  So God let them find this “freedom”.  You know what happened?  When they “did it my way”, the Persians, Babylonians, and Asyrians invaded and conquered them.   It’s the same damn thing that is happening to the West today with Islam.  Why is this relevant to our discussion here?  Because it shows us, if you try to create a “freedom” without the truth, it will eventually lead to enslavment, and not just the hell that we live in today in our own hearts and minds, but the physical kind the way the ancient Jews suffered, except this time it will be with Sharia.  And, Rob, you don’t even have to be particularly religious to figure this out. All you have to know is how to count.  So next time you pimp for the porn industry and smack down a Christian, just remember, he’s having the kids to put up an ideological fight against Islam, while the group you defend is masturbating in a condom and flushing the West down the toilet. It’s the truth that undergirds freedom, not legal, delusional fantasies of licentiousness masqerading as freedom.

The truth will set you free, Rob, not Larry Flint.

4 Responses to “Me & Rob Part 3”
  1. David Cartner says:

    Dear John, you poor scared wimp of a man. I can just picture you hiding under your covers at night waiting for the boogie man too come and get you.
    I hope to God you don’t have kids, your hate and narrow mindedness is the worse kind of Child Abuse. I’m sure if we could see into your mind, we would be disgusted with the thoughts you have about women and children. ” those who scream the loudest are the ones we need to watch out for”.
    You need too pull the Bible out of your ass and take a good look around. It’s called progress John and it’s good for all of us.
    Your little rants only reconfirm peoples beliefs that your a nut job. You give true Christians a bad name. I’m sure the Phelps gang would welcome you with open arms….Maybe you should look into it.
    No respect intended!

  2. Pacheco says:

    Thanks for such a stellar rebuttal, David. I always know I’ve made an impact when my critics write many angry words but don’t say much at all. Thanks for confirming me and my perspective.

  3. Rob says:

    John, we’re now into a whole other realm of debate, which is both irrelevant to our original discussion and relevant to my point. I was not trying to make the case that social conservative should be more supportive of freedom of expression (although I do believe that), I was arguing that social conservatives are not strong supporters of freedom of expression. Instead of countering my argument with a case that you are a strong supporter of freedom of expression, you’re now making the case as to why you are not a strong supporter of freedom of expression.

  4.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>