Tesa
11486

The Sexual Revolution Has Only Just Begun - Crisis Magazine

The turmoil of the abuse crisis has made it hard to find or make sense of travesty in the new world shaped by “progressive values.” The recent McCarr…
Ultraviolet
Except this isn't about pornography @AngelusMaria and your segue to that discredited anti-Semite is irrelevant. This is about junk science being promoted by leftist academics to legitimize deviancy as a tool to change the culture's values. The word pornography doesn't even appear in the article.
AngelusMaria
No one takes you seriously anymore @MKUltraviolent. You are a troll, a lady who quotes the wikipedia of canon law and thinks herself an expert. Your claims against EMJ have been debunked, you have no credibility left except with a handful of similarly afflicted hacks.
AngelusMaria
And to not see connection between pornography and topic at hand further reveals your ignorance.
Ultraviolet
"Your claims against EMJ have been debunked, you have no credibility left "
None of my claims against EMJ have EVER been "debunked". The last time you tried going up against me on this subject I kicked your teeth in point by point.. Like Jones, you're good at re-writing history into a despicable self-serving lie, just like you're doing here. But now that you've made this claim, let's see you …More
"Your claims against EMJ have been debunked, you have no credibility left "

None of my claims against EMJ have EVER been "debunked". The last time you tried going up against me on this subject I kicked your teeth in point by point.. Like Jones, you're good at re-writing history into a despicable self-serving lie, just like you're doing here. But now that you've made this claim, let's see you back it up with something more than your EMJ-inspired revisionist history.

1.) link where I made these claims.
2.) quote me verbatiim
3.) show where you "debunked" me.

Chances are, what we'll soon discover is that your "debunking" got a scathing extensively cited rejoinder from me, meaning... my claims weren't debunked at all. Yours were. You finally tapped out on the last big EMJ debate and don't think I forgot.

I've noticed since then, you've never once "debunked" my biggest and best claim, namely that Roman history repudiates EMJ's claim of a uniquely "Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" directly resulting from Jews "rejecting Logos" i.e Jesus. That's the central premise of his book and it's flat-out wrong.

You want to try debunking a claim of mine? Try "debunking" that one. Go for it. Oh, I'm gonna enjoy this like you can't imagine! You'd already scurried off like a little rat before I'd uncovered the enormity of Jones' mistake, the one he built the theme of his stupid book upon. So if you think you're up for Round Two, then lace up your gloves and bring it! :D

In the meantime, all your unhappy whining "yerra troll" does not in any way change the fact you are topic-shifting. This article was discussing Kinsey's junk studies, now used as "reputable scholarship" by leftists to justify changing the culture. The word "pornography" does not appear in the article so much as once.

You, however, are linking up your fave anti-Semitic failed academic who's re-hashing his own brand of junk studies about pornography (and the supposed "Jewish" connection) now used as "reputable scholarship" by mouth-breathing bigots to justify their pathetic war against Jews.

The only difference between Kinsey and E. Michael Jones is their agenda. Beyond that, the're both incompetent academically dishonest frauds used by other incompetent academically dishonest frauds. Go be EMJ's Jew-hating pet shill somewhere else, brah. Oh. One last thing... Your fallacy is:
Ultraviolet
P.S. Why is it GTV's anti-Semites are always so infatuated with defining me as a female? I've never stated my gender but your kind always choose that one. It's a defining characteristic among your kind. MattSixteen24 was the first, if I remember.
Misogyny much? Makes a lovely matching counterpoint to your equally foolish Jew-bashing, doesn't it? Sort of like a matching set of salt 'n pepper …More
P.S. Why is it GTV's anti-Semites are always so infatuated with defining me as a female? I've never stated my gender but your kind always choose that one. It's a defining characteristic among your kind. MattSixteen24 was the first, if I remember.

Misogyny much? Makes a lovely matching counterpoint to your equally foolish Jew-bashing, doesn't it? Sort of like a matching set of salt 'n pepper shakers for stupid. Don't seer too loudly about wikipedia, sweetheart. It's been your undoing many,many times now. Funny how you never manage to use it effectively for "debunking" the way I do.

And who are you to claim what I think? Are you a psychic who can astrally project across time and space just by reading my comment, float above my skull with your astral body, and mystically KNOW what I'm thinking? You can't? Then shaddap.

I had to put up with one half-wit "psychic" from Ohio this summer, I really don't need another one from New Jersey.
AngelusMaria
MKUltraviolent: people have a sex, words have genders. Anti-semite means nothing coming from you, because you are a judaizer, and haven't the least bit of understanding of what it is EMJ discusses.
You are ignorant of history, of the Church and you are not someone to be taken seriously. You've shown what you are. And you are a jewhater.More
MKUltraviolent: people have a sex, words have genders. Anti-semite means nothing coming from you, because you are a judaizer, and haven't the least bit of understanding of what it is EMJ discusses.

You are ignorant of history, of the Church and you are not someone to be taken seriously. You've shown what you are. And you are a jewhater.
AngelusMaria
You lost that discussion, and there was no point in continuing. You speak of ad hominem, and yet your entire attack on EMJ is just that. You refused to look at the evidence by self-righteously recusing yourself from the duty of hearing the testimony of the accused, saying (paraphrasing) you didn't need to read his work to know what he is about. Willful ignorance and bigotry. So I ended the …More
You lost that discussion, and there was no point in continuing. You speak of ad hominem, and yet your entire attack on EMJ is just that. You refused to look at the evidence by self-righteously recusing yourself from the duty of hearing the testimony of the accused, saying (paraphrasing) you didn't need to read his work to know what he is about. Willful ignorance and bigotry. So I ended the volley since you demonstrated zero intent on understanding. Can't argue will the willfully ignorant.

And I'm not going to bother here either. Respond if you must, but I just don't care. You are deceived and you choose to deceive others . And by seeking to discourage all discussion about the Jews, you contribute to keeping them in bondage to Satan and blind to their Messiah. That is why you are jewhater.
Ultraviolet
"people have a sex,:
Yes, and stupid people are fixated on who a person is, instead of what a person says. Typical bigot mentality, sneer at someone because they're a minority or a Jew or a woman or whatever. .
"words have genders"
In English, most words do not, outside of those specifically referring to gender A noun like "apple" does not have a "gender" in English. Since you didn't …More
"people have a sex,:

Yes, and stupid people are fixated on who a person is, instead of what a person says. Typical bigot mentality, sneer at someone because they're a minority or a Jew or a woman or whatever. .

"words have genders"
In English, most words do not, outside of those specifically referring to gender A noun like "apple" does not have a "gender" in English. Since you didn't qualify the statement and made a blanket declaration, right from your first sentence, you're already wrong.

"because you are a judaizer"

Wrong. Time for some wiki! :D "Judaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices". Which I don't, so you're wrong again. You've made that accusaiton before. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Yeah, this is me "losing" another argument by factually correcting you point by point again. :D.

"and haven't the least bit of understanding of what it is EMJ discusses."

Unsupported and factually incorrect. The last time, I went pont by point correcting you and EMJ. This time I'm just correcting you.

"You are ignorant of history, of the Church and you are not someone to be taken seriously."

Equally unsupported claim, just you makin' it up as you go along, zero examples given., and you're taking my comments awfully seriously, aint'cha?

"You've shown what you are. And you are a jewhater."

Contradicted by your prevsious and equally asinine claim that I'm supposedly a "judaizer".

Because someone who supposedly hates Jews would also support adopting Jewish customs and practices.

See? This is how you anti-Semites lose arguments every time. You can't get your stories straight. You throw one meaningless accusation after another and don't even notice when you're contradicting yourself like you just did here. :D

Yeah, I'm sure "losing" this debate like da las' time, amirite? :D

"You speak of ad hominem, and yet your entire attack on EMJ is just that."

Wrong. I have made a factually based criticism of his central premise. That is not an attack on EMJ, it is an attack on his premise. I challenged you to "debunk" it. You have not. You can not and you will not.

I also challenged you to back up your previous claim how you "debunked" my previous claims against EMJ.

1.) link where I made these claims.
2.) quote me verbatiim
3.) show where you "debunked" me.

Again, you have not. You can not and you will not. Instead, you'll prattle on with your fantasy recollections how I "lost" that argument even when this one is turning into another repeat of it... your errors are getting corrected one after another after another. But like all your nonsense, you can't back it up with examples, can you? :D

"You refused to look at the evidence by self-righteously recusing yourself from the duty of hearing the testimony of the accused,"

Spare me your pretentious two-bit notions of legalese. You're not an attorney. You don't reason like an attoreny, you don't argue argue like an attorney because you aren't an attorney.

You were quoting entire pages of EMJ's book and I was factually correcting his drivel paragraph after paragraph. So yes, I DID look at his "evidence", I found the claims false, and I corrected them. I read his testimony and it was one falsehood piled after another.

Your accusation is demonstrably false on a second point. I will repeat... Roman history repudiates EMJ's claim of a uniquely "Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" directly resulting from Jews "rejecting Logos" i.e Jesus. That's the central premise of his book and it's flat-out wrong.

It is impossible for me to make such a claim without having read EMJ's silly book. So, no, I have NOT "self-righteously recused myself from the duty of hearing the testimony of the accused,"

I've heard EMJ from you in daily thirty thousand word posts and I've heard it straight from the donkey's mouth. It was wrong when you copy-pasta'd it day after day and it was wrong when when I started reading the book you were copying from.. To the best of my knowledge, I'm the first to have noticed the enormity of the historical error he made in the premise of his book. I suspect most critical readers realized the man was full of it and simply didn't waste their time fact-checking such an inept writer.

Either way, your accusation fails, just like every previous one in your reply.

"(paraphrasing) you didn't need to read his work to know what he is about."

...and (paraphrasing as well) A person does not need to consume garbage to recognize it as such. This is why book reviews exist. Ironically, as it turns out you were plagiarizing huge portions of his book, so I already WAS reading his work. I just didn't know it yet. You just weren't honest enough to mention I was reading EMJ's words and not your own. ;-)

"Can't argue will the willfully ignorant."

But you can argue with them. :D :D I've been doing so with you for some time now.

"You are deceived and you choose to deceive others."

That's a lie, and you are a liar. You have never once shown any deceit on my part. I however, have shown plenty on yours, starting with the fact you plagiarized EMJ.

"And by seeking to discourage all discussion about the Jews"

Another lie. Your twisted notion of "discussion" is just one long stream of libel against Jews. Every time someone calls your kind out on that, you immediately retreat into this same cannard about "stifling discussion". I seek to factually correct anti-Semites like yourself, EMJ, and to prevent your kind from misleading others.

"you contribute to keeping them in bondage to Satan and blind to their Messiah."

Utter nonsense. Jews choose to reject Christ. Nothing I do will change their rejection. Neither you nor EMJ have any concern whatsoever for the Jewish soul. You people aren't Christian missionaries specializing in trying to convert Jews.

The only thing you linked here was more of EMJ's rubbish that Jews supposedly are responsible for porn. That has nothing to do with the subject of the article, it's topic shifting plain and simple. Likewise, it has nothing to do with helping Jews realize the truth of Jesus Christ.

It has everything to do with an anti-Semitic shill promoting an anti-Semitic fraud trying to libel a group of people. The only missionary work you and EMJ care about is creating more anti-Semites.

That's his agenda, it's yours because you're shilling his garbage and the Catholic Church repudiates your views. It repudiated it before Vatican II and it repudiated it afterwards. The only jewhaters are EMJ and his shills. You don't care about Jews or converting them.

Speaking bluntly, The only thing you and EMJ want to help Jews do is take another one-way train ride to some place with ovens.

"And I'm not going to bother here either. Respond if you must, but I just don't care."

So I can expect you won't be replying. Because you just don't care, amirite? ;-)
Ratsmea
Kinsley just like Karl Marx received fund from International Communists to spread errors so that many souls would be lost. Satan's disciples.
Alex A
Kinsley concocted much of his research on human sexuality relying on 'exaggerated' anecdotal evidence of convicted sexual offenders. Later his work was to come under more critical review from less biased sociologists. However, his work still remains pivotal to the support and acceptance of the sexual revolution that has plagued our western culture since the publication of his infamous 'body of …More
Kinsley concocted much of his research on human sexuality relying on 'exaggerated' anecdotal evidence of convicted sexual offenders. Later his work was to come under more critical review from less biased sociologists. However, his work still remains pivotal to the support and acceptance of the sexual revolution that has plagued our western culture since the publication of his infamous 'body of make-believe scientific studies' of human sexuality.
AngelusMaria
Learn more about the use of pornography as a weapon by listening to Dr. E Michael Jones, author of:
Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control
bitchute.com/video/siGRrkcfhL49/More
Learn more about the use of pornography as a weapon by listening to Dr. E Michael Jones, author of:

Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control

bitchute.com/video/siGRrkcfhL49/