Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Fletch Culture Of Vice

An excellent article by Robert R Reilly that explains why some seek to inflict their own moral disorders on society - why "everyone must accede to their rationalization" [bold emphasis mine]

----


Robert Reilly notes that a society can withstand any number of persons who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But society cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war.

In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, "men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives." This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these "private" reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.

For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good.


It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: "...when I said `yes' to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life."

Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one's life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.

The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.

According to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, for example, all those reluctant to participate in his rationalization for killing people (including, it turns out, some who are not even ill) are the real problem; the judicial system is "corrupt," the medical profession is "insane," and the press is "meretricious." Of the coroner who found nothing medically wrong with several of his victims, Dr. Kevorkian said that he is a "liar and a fanatical religious nut."

The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, "We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives." Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want "government and society" to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. "Coming out of the closet" can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.

And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, "America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage," as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.

The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that "everyone is at risk." If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored.

27 comment(s):

Ackers said...

You really are obsessed with homosexual acts you poor misbegotten sod.

'homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS'

What a ludicrous statement. The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex.

I.M Fletcher said...

The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex.

Ackers, that is incorrect. Why, the original name for AIDS was GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). It was only changed for political reasons.

The CDC reported in 2009 that AIDS is 50 times more prevalent in homosexual men than the rest of the population. A prominent homosexual leader also said that AIDS is a predominantly gay disease -

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF, www.thetaskforce.org), the nation’s oldest gay rights group, made the statements at the organization’s national conference in February.
Foreman’s controversial statement about AIDS surprised even many of the conference attendees. He told them, “Folks, with 70% of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi(sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”


The AVERT website says "In the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS is much higher than other groups such as heterosexual people or children."

The CDC also says, "Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV Prevention Strategic Plan Through 2005. January 2001

So, to say it's mostly spread through members of the opposite sex just isn't true.

Angus said...

"and 15 percent through heterosexual sex"

Indeed. And a good proportion of those numbers would result as a consequence of the male partner in such heterosexual contact also engaging in homosexual sex as part of his overall sexual repertoire i.e. bisexual

In other words, it's the butt-sex, stupid.

Ackers said...

If you are so dumb you can't work out the simple fact that GLOBALLY AIDS is a predominantly heterosexual disease it's little wonder you end up spewingt out the retarded ignorant drivel that this post is.

I.M Fletcher said...

Ackers - sorry, but YOU'RE JUST PLAIN WRONG. Who the hell told you that? Even homosexuals recognize that AIDS is a greater danger to them than any heterosexual.

Where's your evidence?

David Winter said...

IM,

Your stats are from the states, what proportion of HIV infected people live in the states...

(I thought the HIV-AIDS link was a scam anyway?)

Steve Walker said...

Thanks for the post; it is thought provoking.

ZenTiger said...

Stats are an interesting thing. Globally, a lot of heterosexual people have aids. However, I think you'd need to consider the factors in Africa where there is a high count, is due to other factors than say, the USA. And then you get transmission from infected mother to child (up to 25% transmission rate).

You might want to include those in your "total infected" percentage, but again, I think that approach is actually irrelevant to the point Fletch makes in the context of Western Society.

Ackers said...

The stats are readily available - World Health Organisation is the obvious place to look.

http://www.who.int/hiv/data/en/

50% of those affected globally are women. Very strange don't you think that gay men are responsible for this!

And Zen I have no idea what point Fletch is trying to make.

As a gay man to be told that sodomy is a moral disorder from someone who hasn't the wit or the intelligence to get one very basic fact correct is a bit of a laugh.

Stephen Fry nails the stupidity and lack of humanity.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_shortfilms/

Anne Widdecombe's face says it all!

I.M Fletcher said...

Ackers, actually the stats say that of all those who have AIDS (at least in the US), 80% of them are male. Look at the stats from 1999


UNITED STATES
Cumulatively through 1999, 733,374 AIDS cases have been reported in the US.

In 1999, 46,400 AIDS cases were reported in the US.

Cumulatively through 1999, 8,718 pediatric AIDS cases have been reported in the US.

Males account for 83% of cumulative reported AIDS cases, and females account for 17%. The male-to-female ratio is 4.9:1.

In 1999, 21,419 HIV cases were reported in the US.

Males account for 72% of cumulative reported HIV cases, and females account for 28%. The male-to-female ratio is 2.6:1.


[edit] you can find more current stats on the AVERT site for 2008 HERE

Head down and look at the numbers under Estimated adult and adolescent males living with an AIDS diagnosis in 2007 by race/ethnicity and exposure category

You'll see that "transmission route" for "Male-to-male sexual contact" has way greater numbers eg, - male to male sexual contact for 'white' men is 107,544. For the same group under 'High-risk heterosexual contact' the number is 5,165. See the difference? The numbers are different for different races, but there are always more from male-to-male contact (twice as much and over) then from heterosexual contact. And this site is one of the official AIDS info providers.

Also check out Estimated adult and adolescent HIV and AIDS diagnoses in 2008, by race/ethnicity. Under 'white' you'll see those with AIDS number 8,981 men and 1,583 women.

So, how can you tell me otherwise?

ZenTiger said...

As I said, you need to consider the factors in Africa differently than the USA, so your own "totals" are about a different story. You are hiding from Fletch's point, no matter how you try to characterise it.

Here are some stats you need to acknowledge. Ackers, are these true or not?

[MSM = Men who have sex with men]

* MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

* MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

* While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

* MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

As for counting women and children in global stats (and I note you steer clear of mentioning children for obvious reasons), the disease has been around for a long time, so those first generations of children are now in the adult statistics (adults are counted as >15 years), further highlighting the statistics report only the number of those affected, not how they got that way. Promiscuity, brutality, and lack of responsibility (willingness to infect others) is a big part of that.

These are forms of moral weakness.

ZenTiger said...

Oops, snap Fletch! I grabbed the stats from the CDC website, may have been around 2006.

I.M Fletcher said...

Also, I don't really care what Stephen Fry has to say. I will look at the video later maybe, but I am obviously going to disagree with him (being Catholic myself). Being gay, of course he is going to carry water for the new atheists and for those who accept his conduct.

It's a very good example of this very article I posted above - Fry has to argue against the Church. To agree with the Church would be to face self recrimination, so he has to rationalize his conduct and have society agree with him in order to feel justified.

I have nothing against Fry personally. I enjoyed him very much in Jeeves and Wooster. I also like some of the work of Oscar Wilde (including the Selfish Giant, one of the most beautiful short stories ever written, which still causes me to shed tears when I read it), yet I also do not agree with his homosexual conduct.

Do I hate him for it? Of course not. One need not hate a person to disagree with some of his action or conduct. Again, that is why "homophobia" is such a dishonest weapon in the hands of gays. They use it against anyone who disagrees with them.

I.M Fletcher said...

Great minds ey Zen ;)

Ackers said...

au contraire, the problem is you don't agree with 'my conduct'.

A small problem for a sexually active homosexual male.

Our conduct is always going to be something you don't agree with.

To agree with it is to nueter ourselves.

Quite a tall order for a reasonably attractive red blooded male.

We see the results in the Catholic church.

It 'aint pretty.

Psycho Milt said...

When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated.

Ooh, a fine example of the logical fallacy begging the question.

The gentleman you're quoting seeks to demonstrate that gays are simply rationalising immoral behaviour, to avoid confronting their immorality. The whole basis of his argument depends on the behaviour in question being immoral. So, his first task is to demonstrate that the behaviour is immoral, right? Instead, he starts from the assumption that the behaviour just is immoral - ie, he assumes the very thing he's meant to be trying to prove.

Sometimes poor arguments look persuasive because they're telling you what you want to hear.

Lucia Maria said...

PM,

What is immoral is generally bad for the person, for some reason.

We can see that in marriage, the married are generally better off than the unmarried and so are their children. A family that consists of a married man and his wife and children has better outcomes than a family consisting of multiple wives even.

With the homosexual lifestyle, it can be demonstrated that the lifestyle is dangerous to health and life as shown by the decreased lifespan of those who engage in unnatural sex acts.

It seems to me that those arguing against the immorality of male/male sex do so from a stubborn, pigheaded position. In the case of Ackers, it makes sense, he wants to keep doing what he is doing without anyone looking at him as if there is something wrong with him.

But, you PM. You are a married man, as far as I am aware. Yet, you see nothing wrong with male/male sex. And you argue strongly in favour of it being viewed in the same way as monogamous married sex. It's as if you have a secret life that you are defending. Arguing just for the sake of being the Devil's Advocate just doesn't explain the number of times you've popped up in these debates.

Ackers said...

Indeed it makes sense Lucia. Those who know me including my son love me and oddly enough don't see anything wrong with me.

I suspect they would consider you a very odd person with a severe case of moral disorder.

Ackers said...

The ultimate irony being of course the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

A festering hotbed of repressed homosexuality manifesting as child abuse.

Lucia Maria said...

Ackers,

Telling me I'm odd makes no difference to me. I know I'm odd. You grow up knowing that your Dad barely escaped with his life after being a political prisoner in Siberia as a child tends to do things to a person's absolute determination not be cowed by moral degenerates that seek to have their behaviour endorsed by the general population.

So I know that right now you are throwing everything you can at me in order to get me to be quiet, and that you are deathly afraid that I won't stop talking.

What happened to your boy's mother? Did you leave her to follow your sexual appetites?

David Winter said...

Lucia,

Your belief that anyone would stands up for LGBT rights is themselves gay is really very creepy.

Psycho Milt said...

But, you PM. You are a married man, as far as I am aware.

Correct - nearly 30 years monogamous, as promised at the time.

Yet, you see nothing wrong with male/male sex.

True, but more correctly expressed as "you see nothing wrong with sex that involves consenting adults."

And you argue strongly in favour of it being viewed in the same way as monogamous married sex.

Not at all. I view monogamous married sex as something pretty special for obvious reasons, and don't view someone getting their leg over with someone they just met as being in anything like the same league as what I experience. So I couldn't argue for taking the view that they're the same. The issue is whether someone who doesn't do what I do is thereby morally wrong - and that's the bit where these posts always run into trouble. The immorality is yet to be demonstrated. For my part, I'd consider there to be a better case for declaring promiscuous heterosexual intercourse immoral than homosexuality, on the basis that the heteros are potentially creating a child without any intention or willingness to raise it - the homos only have each other to consider.

It's as if you have a secret life that you are defending.

Well, either that or I have enough ordinary human empathy to see another person's point of view without needing a personal investment in it - one or the other.

Anyway, if the number of times I comment on posts on this subject is suspicious, what does that say about the number of posts?

Lucia Maria said...

PM,

It says that there is an active battle taking place. One that in the end, determines Heaven or Hell.

David,

An your insinuation that there is creepiness involved is just weird. Seriously weird. As if what we believe and defend is somehow divorced from the issues and that to you is normal. How can schizophrenia be normal? How can a man think that a woman is creepy, unless he is somehow intimidated by women?

Here is something I am noticing. The people who defend homosexual sex most vigorously tend to be men. On some level, I think men can empathise with other men better than women can on strange and unusual sexual desires that men have.

And PM, to whom the question was directed, took no offence. Yet you did. Interesting.

Lucia Maria said...

Ackers said, The ultimate irony being of course the priesthood of the Catholic Church. A festering hotbed of repressed homosexuality manifesting as child abuse.

It wasn't the repressed homosexuality that manifested, it was the active homosexuality that abused children. Just about every, if not every abuser of children was an active homosexual (with adults).

Ackers said...

The boy’s mother remains my best friend and soul mate Lucia. I suspect if I had remained a repressed homosexual and not followed my sexual appetites it would have been very unhealthy for me, her and our son.

As it is I think we are a good example of the broad church that is the modern family!

Lucia Maria said...

Ackers,

You've bought into the lie that your appetites rule you. Except, you are not an animal, you are a man. Men have the capacity to put their loved ones first, not give in to their carnal desires, which, until they are acted upon are no more than temptations designed to debase you and lead you astray.

And as you are beloved by God, He can and will help you out of your slavery to lust and self-gratification, should you ask Him to do so.

I.M Fletcher said...

The ultimate irony being of course the priesthood of the Catholic Church. A festering hotbed of repressed homosexuality manifesting as child abuse.

And actually, there are no more abusers in the Catholic Church than in any other church or, in fact, any other institution. The Shakeshaft report commissioned by the US Department of Education in 2004 reported "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

In fact, abuse by priests is no greater than abuse of children by married men (so, out the window goes the assumption that priests should be allowed to marry because that will stop abuse).

Not that I want to imply that I am giving priests a free pass. Any abuse of children is wrong, and the Church ought to be more moral than society, so we shouldn't use the norms or actions of society as excuses.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.