Fetzer supports Trump, gets fired from Barrett's show

[JSanderO]

Made for eachother... sad to see them break up... Hard to listen to either of these gasbags... but I do hear them occasionally on Guns And Butter...

 

[Childlike Empress]

Has Fetzer embraced flat-earthism yet? It can only be a matter of time, since there are younger guys like Eric Dubay who are pushing zeteticism alongside dozens of other fringe ideas, served up with the usual side-orders of Holocaust denial and extreme anti-Zionism.

I don't know about Fetzer's view on the shape of the earth. I actually listen frequently to Barrett's radio show, but not to Fetzer's. I like that you use the term "extreme anti-Zionism" because moderate anti-Zionism should be a position held by every Humanist.

 

[JSanderO]

I don't mean to side line this thread... Zionism seems to be no different than other "movements" for self determination and a nation status... Sure it's about real estate. And people fight over real estate all the time. And fighting is not a good thing in almost all cases.

My understanding of the history of the region is unclear and of course both sides seem to making a claim for the same real estate... Of course it would be better if they could just share and live together... but if they can't they need to divide it up.

I thought that Jordan was supposed to be the state for the Arabs. Although "resettlement" seems weird and often "unfair"... millions were resettled in Pakistan I believe.

I've also wondered by with the arab lands so huge and their oil wealth so vast that they didn't just give the "Palestinians" land and build them something like Dubai... more modest of course.

Jeruselum is the thing they all fight over and so that is where the UN should be sited and not belong to anyone.... open to all...

The ME is way too violent and full of weird ideas...(mostly religious in origin) and has become a huge problem for the entire world... and may light up the next world war.

 

[fuelair]

I thought the F guy's name was Felcher.

 

[jaydeehess]

In Genesis, the men from Sodom who besieged Lot's house wanted to have homosexual intercourse with Lot's guests (or rape his daughter, or do worse with Lot himself). That's the story whence the term is derived.
Don't know where, when and how zoophilie entered in. That isn't limited to German, but it seems in most countries and languages, "sodomy" refers to anal penetration more or less exclusively.
Similar terms (derived from the Quran, which has its own version of the Lot story) exist in Arabic and Persian, based on the name "Lot" rather than "Sodom".

Yes, a group gathered at Lot's door wanting to have apparently homesexual relations with his male guests. Lot , in an attempt to mollify them , offers his daughter for them to rape. Given that such an offer was acceptable at one time, I assume Kevin Barrett would defend those who might still see it as a valid alternative to homosexual rape.

 

[Redwood]

Actually, I thought that the position on homosexuality that Barrett explains there is relatively reasonable. I disagree with the opinion that sodomy (read: anal sex) is "of course, an unnatural act" and disagree separately with the moral maxim that therefore sodomy ought to be considered immoral and be banned...

It's not "unnatural" for the simple fact that it occurs "in nature". I once had a male dog who, from birth, was intensely attracted to other male dogs, and would attempt to have anal sex with them. OTOH, he would run away, yiping, from females in heat. My father was intensely disappointed, as our dog was a purebred of a relatively rare breed, and he was looking forward to some handsome stud fees. But it was not to be.....

 

[beachnut]

"Veterans Today" burned Fetzer? lol - the dumbest publication full of BS on earth. Fetzer and Veterans Today are both full of BS based on overwhelming ignorance, like the kind CrazyIdiotsTeam, CIT nuts have.

Barrett, Fetzer, Veterans Today, and CIT - BS and lies.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I spoke with Fetzer once, it was like having your brain pressure washed with stupidity.

 

[fuelair]

Yes, a group gathered at Lot's door wanting to have apparently homesexual relations with his male guests. Lot , in an attempt to mollify them , offers his daughter for them to rape. Given that such an offer was acceptable at one time, I assume Kevin Barrett would defend those who might still see it as a valid alternative to homosexual rape.

I always see things like that as an offer from the requesting parties to receive a load of buckshot or 10.

 

[Georgio]

Hence "relatively".

His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past, that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.

I should add that of course I realize you aren't defending Barrett's position.

 

[marplots]

His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past, that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.

Why not? Surely the people who evaluated the issue before were of the same caliber as those evaluating it now. It may be that new information has come along to alter the landscape, but historical analysis ought to have some value. Furthermore, we are no more protected from being wrong than they were.

One should be cautious and not fall into the trap of temporalcentricism.

 

[BStrong]

I thought the F guy's name was Felcher.

I like what you did there

 

[Georgio]

Why not?

You answered your own question:

...new information has come along to alter the landscape,

Comparative cultural studies in both humans and non humans show that there is no justification for labelling male anal sex or homosexuality unnatural.

...historical analysis ought to have some value.

Absolute nonsense, other than for social historians.

Analyses based on ideas that have been shown to be wrong should not inform anyone's position. You don't think doctors should still be trying to balance the humors as well as administering antibiotics, surely?

 

[marplots]

You answered your own question:

Comparative cultural studies in both humans and non humans show that there is no justification for labelling male anal sex or homosexuality unnatural.

Absolute nonsense, other than for social historians.

Analyses based on ideas that have been shown to be wrong should not inform anyone's position. You don't think doctors should still be trying to balance the humors as well as administering antibiotics, surely?

No, but neither would I discount Newton or Plato. I wasn't objecting to anything about anal sex, but about adopting a position of trivializing past understandings as a general rule.

Anal sex is a preference. It matters not a bit whether it's natural or not. Even if we made the case that it was unhealthy, that wouldn't matter either. I am free to make unhealthy choices.

 

[fuelair]

I like what you did there

Thanks!!! I love it when esoteric works!!!

 

[Playing Games]

Looks like Fetzer has melanoma on his forehead... This is hysterical...Fundamentalism meets narcissistic moron.

Yes, I was going to mention that too, but still he has no neck.

 

[Oystein]

His position seems to be that since a great many people believed something in the past,

A great many people still do in the present, as Barrett correctly points out.

that means it's true, or more generously that that has something to do with whether it's true or not.

I don't think such a position even qualifies as 'relatively reasonable'. It's the opposite of reasonable.

Barrett is commenting on the ethical status of anal sex. This is a personal judgment derived from some ideology, and thus not subject to determination of "truth" in the scientific sense. It is thus not subject to reason within the framework ob rational objectivity.

You can reason within the framework of a given ideology, which in Barrett's case may be Islam, perhaps with western (US traditional...) values mixed in for good measure, and he wouldn't be wrong or irrational if he framed his argument thusly.

His argument is directed at Fetzer, who assumes that accepting homosexual activity as a given, and Barrett points out that it isn't a given if seen from a larger cultural and historical perspective.

I should add that of course I realize you aren't defending Barrett's position.

Understood
I clearly side with Fetzer and against Barrett, but realise it's a moral opinion derived from a rather modern ideological framework.

 

[Georgio]

Barrett is commenting on the ethical status of anal sex. This is a personal judgment derived from some ideology, and thus not subject to determination of "truth" in the scientific sense. It is thus not subject to reason within the framework ob rational objectivity.

But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.

 

[Oystein]

But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.

You are correct as long as you are not arguing from a base premise that something like a "god" created the universe and humankind and set rules for humans.

 

[ozeco41]

But the ethical determination that it is 'wrong' relies on the scientifically falsifiable (and falsified) notion that it is 'an unnatural act'. Now that we know homosexuaity and anal sex between males is not unnatural, any ethical position that relies on that notion cannot be called reasonable or 'relatively reasonable'.

Agreed.

Ultimately the overall "faith based" argument is not accessible to reasoned argument.

BUT that does not mean that the individual elements used to support a faith based argument cannot be individually rebutted/falsified - or supported and accepted. R Dawkins makes that point often.

The error comes in the summation into the overall argument AND the inclusion of factors which are unfalsifiable faith based.