Here is a place to let your words do your talking for you.
I'm confused, my friend. Where exactly do I fit into this equation? Or is this just another of your interestingly tangential rants?
I have to say that I gasped when I read the description of his views on women, although with hate-filled whackos like that I shouldn't have been so shocked.
Clearly he has a perversion of Scripture and a complete warping of right and wrong. Perhaps we could straighten out the women question by giving him a dictionary and a Bible. Eph 5 talks first of submitting ourselves to each other. What does that mean? Do we fall each over each other to obey each other? Of course not. We are to prefer each other, yield to one another when possible. I see an example of this in women's friendships as we have a tendency to make major decisions by committee. Only after that does Paul say for wives to submit to husbands. What does that mean? How about--get along with, cooperate with, yield to when possible. Furthermore, since submission is a voluntary act it cannot be forced or required, it can only be given. Then Paul goes on at length to describe how a man is to love his wife just like Jesus did "laying down his life". Tell you what---that kind of love, when someone lays his life down for me daily, always has my interests at heart, thinks of me ahead of himself, I don't find it all that hard to cooperate and get along. I don't see why this is such a mystery to people.
But Phelps is a megalomaniac and I suppose he cannot be happy unless he is in charge even if it is only in his own microcosm. He seems to need a scapegoat (homosexuals) to make himself seem more impt.
I see your point. Hitler needed to scapegoat Jews.
I'm not sure if you are, but you seemed surprised at least by Hitler's knowledge of Scripture. I don't find that surprising at all. Most of Western Civ knew the Bible well whether they were believers or not. Much of the great literature used Biblical allusions to make points which would instantly resonate with the readers. It was cultural literacy and symbols that all could connect with. The British soldiers were trapped on the shore (I forget outside of which right now) during WW2. They send a morse code message back home. All they needed to say was "But if not...". Instantly England knew what they meant and rose to rescue them so their story would not end in "but if not" (Daniel 3 is the source of the Biblical story). They sent out so many little boats anything they could and they evacuated everyone. That's cultural literacy and I see no reason why the Germans wouldn't have had that too with a rich history.
I guess the real sin of man has from the beginning been wanting to be our own god. While most of us commit this sin in small obscure ways, every so often someone will come along who really "exemplifies" that desire to reign over our own lives without any rules upon us by becoming full blown megalomaniacs---like Hilter and Phelps and Manson and Jim Jones and Stalin...
I'm confused, my friend. Where exactly do I fit into this equation?
Only in wallowing about in your own metaphoric filth, which is pretty much where you say that you fit in and what you write that you are doing. So I hope that you will not object to me agreeing with you. Something that may be more debatable is where you fit in with the notion of abusing moral judgment as a sort of publicity stunt like Phelps consistently does.
But at a basic level it would seem that you already know where you fit into it all and I'm not in disagreement. Yet I am confused as to why my normal IP seems to be banned from your site. I don't know what else it could be, and if you see an IP reference from Belgium that was me because you got me curious.
"Furthermore, since submission is a voluntary act it cannot be forced or required, it can only be given."
You might say that he has a traditional Islamic view of submission. I may write more on that later.
"You might say that he has a traditional Islamic view of submission."
Yeah.
You've been banned from Mike's site? That's crazy! Why?
A question for you as it kinda relates:
If there is no right or wrong, how could we condemn Phelps and his deluded followers? See, I believe in right and wrong so I have no problem passing judgment here. But if someone does not believe in absolutes, isn't that a little hypocritical? I just wonder bec I hear so much these days about there being no moral absolutes, ya know?
Grrr. Mynym, there something wrong with your comment page, methinks. Sometimes when I try to go back to your main page it won't let me and I need to go back to my favorites page to click over again. What's up with that? Is it your site or my system?
Ouch, mynym! You really know how to throw your own metaphorical stones there.
So you think I've banned you? I don't even know how to address your ridiculous accusation but to say that I actually have no idea how to ban anyone! I've banned IP addresses from commenting (but only those commenters who spam me with "buy viagra" or "texas hold 'em online casinos").
Is it that you're not able to view my site or that you can't comment? Please explain and I'll attempt to do my best to fix the situation with my rudimentary knowledge of computers and such. In a filthy way, of course.
You've been banned from Mike's site? That's crazy! Why?
It "seems" so according to what knowledge I have, which is fine. There's always the possibility that he's been hacked and malicious code inserted, by aliens.
Anyway, if I want to do something on the internet then I can generally get to it, not that I'm an expert at it. The way people are easily wowed by little bits of computer knowledge reminds me of the story of Kevin Mitnick and the way that when they arrested him he wasn't allowed to use a cellphone or any phone, as if he could hack into NORAD and launch a nuclear missile with one. And another hacker testifying before congress took one of their phones and used the keypad to hack in and listen in on other cellphone conversations. Wow. The government already has the whole echelon programs to listen in on any conversation they want to over the air. That's why this latest bit of congressional demagoguery over hard or wire tapping is so absurd, what a bunch of ignorant blowhards.
But anyway, my pal Mike "seems" to want to wallow about in his filth safely, and I'm fine with that. Ironically, he needs the so-called Puritanical sense of keeping things clean (clean, clean!) to have a sense that he's being filthy anyway. It's really not very Puritanical to say/judge that much of what Mike writes is degenerate and the like, whatever it is that Puritanical is supposed to mean because the Puritans were not quite the Taliban types that some try to portray them as. I suppose I should say that it is not very Talibanical. There's plenty of room for nearly infinite forms of beauty between the extremism of a Burka trying to stifle and deny all immanence or a total nudism that wallows in it.
Sometimes when I try to go back to your main page it won't let me and I need to go back to my favorites page to click over again.
I guess I'll switch it back to a pop up window then.
Ouch, mynym! You really know how to throw your own metaphorical stones there.
If you are hurt by me repeating what you've already written then maybe you should look at what you are writing.
Is it that you're not able to view my site or that you can't comment?
From my normal IP address I cannot load your site, usually that's the way it is if someone bans an IP, as you can do using a counter and so on. If you say you didn't then it must be your server software doesn't like my IP address or some such. Well, if someone else says the same thing then you know what the problem probably is.
Please explain and I'll attempt to do my best to fix the situation with my rudimentary knowledge of computers and such.
Don't worry about it, I can go around whatever it is. Maybe I should switch IP addresses altogether anyway. I shouldn't have suggested I was banned by you. I didn't think of the fact that you might be using some weird server that tries to screen risky IPs, plus I assumed that you know what you're doing. That's not a metaphoric stone, by the way. You're usually the one writing judgments about yourself, are they to be taken seriously or not?
Hmmm. Mike, Mynym, aren't either of you going to address my question in comment number 4? I really wanted to hear how that worked. Seriously, Mike, esp, since your site is "Down with Absolutes" I assume you don't think there are any. Do I misunderstand you? Please go back and look at my question and respond. I'm trying to dialogue here and you aren't cooperating.
Anna,
The title of my site is totally tongue-in-cheek. Or not. It's a lyric from a Joe Henry song entitled "Tiny Voices." I thought it sounded cool.
Of course I believe in absolutes in some form. I abhor them in others. Don't read too deeply into the title of my site and you may find you'll enjoy it a heck of a lot more. Of course, that may be hard for mynym. I'm sure he could give you a 100-page dissertation on why Reese's Peanut Butter Cups taste so darn good! 
Anna,
As for your question in post #4, I find such issues to be rather laugable. In truth, I could care less about what Phelps is doing. It doesn't matter if I think it's "morally objectionable." His speech is protected under the law. I've thought that way for years. It has nothing to do with morality because I kind of have my own moral code I attempt to follow.
I disagree entirely with the views held by the Phelps clan, but I'm not going to condemn them. I'll condemn them when they drag a gay dude into a field and kill him. By doing that, they've broken the law.
The problem with morality is that it is --many times-- very subjective. Gay people getting married doesn't bother me. Part of my moral code tells me that human beings shouldn't NOT be allowed to marry simply because of their sexuality. And especially because they participate in this democracy by paying taxes. But, some on the right would find such actions "morally objectionable." That's where I take the whole "moral absolutist" argument and tell people to "shove it!"
If that makes me a "moral relativist," then so be it. I've got more important things to worry about instead of condemning the Phelps plan for actively engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.
wow, mynym and Mike M. clear the muddied air!!
Mike--
"The title of my site is totally tongue-in-cheek. Or not. It's a lyric from a Joe Henry song entitled "Tiny Voices." I thought it sounded cool."
Gotcha. My knowledge of pop culture is truly pathetic. If it has to do with tv or music, never throw out an allusion and expect me to get it, for future reference. Of course, with your "or not" you really haven't answered anything but have left your whole answer open to interpretation. You have all the makings of a world class politician.
"I'm sure he could give you a 100-page dissertation on why Reese's Peanut Butter Cups taste so darn good!"
Why of course! But I think it would fall under the category of science more than philosophy. People love fatty foods. There are also specific components of chocolate that makes it so inviting. But let's not get bogged down here.
"His speech is protected under the law...It has nothing to do with morality...I'll condemn them when they drag a gay dude into a field and kill him. By doing that, they've broken the law."
Maybe I am misreading you, but it seems to me that you are saying that what really matters is what is against the law or not.
When our value system revolves around what is against the law or not, we are saying that we lack our own moral judgment. It means that we are dependent upon the authority of the collective masses and conventional opinion for deciding what's right and wrong.
Personally, I will not bow my conscience to the diktats of the masses or the powers that be. I don't see where the majority (51%) can define right and wrong for me. 51% can be wrong!
So, is murder, for ex, wrong only because at least 51% of people say so or is there something deeper than that. Was racial discrimination OK before laws were passed against it or was it already wrong because it goes against deeper principles of the universe or is it wrong only bec the Constitution is now interpreted that way?
Is murder wrong because it's against the law, or is it against the law bec it' wrong?
Do you see the difference? What do you think? Do we need to wait for the majority to think something is wrong and pass a law and then say, "Oh, gee, I guess that's wrong now even though it wasn't yesterday" and submit our consciences to other very fallible people? Or is there something deeper, higher upon which we can rest our principles?
wow, mynym and Mike M. clear the muddied air!!
We did? Well, there is one thing we agree on, that being free speech. Yet why Mike adheres to this principle isn't exactly clear in the end, here he seems to be saying that it is because he divorces speech from substance. It seems to me if we do that then free speech is only free because talk is so cheap. I.e., if the economy collapses and all the paper money being used to prop up values now is stripped away speech will no longer be so free because talk/money will not come so cheap. It seems to me that a "talk is cheap" version of "free speech" is the one that most Americans adhere to though, as Mike does here.
So they adhere to reasoning that is the opposite of the Founders. If there is an economic collapse then their values will become apparent because the cheap/fake money of the State will not be able to paper over all values. I could try to explain the reasoning of the Founders and why they valued speech so highly and note how their talk was not cheap and essentially meaningless but that would be meandering. Instead I would say that at least Mike and I can agree about something, although it is a sort of fake agreement.
A disagreement:
Part of my [subjective] moral code tells me that human beings shouldn't NOT be allowed to marry simply because of their sexuality.
It's a contradiction in terms to communicate that a code is only subjective. It is subjective, yet that's not all it is. All codes are a pattern of information that must be objective(the objective language written by the sender) and subjective,(the subjective agreement by the subject to either read the code or to seek a means of doing so) otherwise they are not a code.
But anyway, no one is being turned away from marriage based on their sexual desires so the status quo fits your moral "code" anyway. I.e., there are no "homosexuality people" currently being turned away from marriage based on their sexuality anymore than there are "promiscuity people" who are. The law generally isn't based on something as nebulous, relative and mutable as sexual desires because it cannot be. Now some federal judges may try to base law on sexual desires and some people may be silly enough to give them laws to try to "interpret" in that mentally incompetent way that they have these days, yet they are still not basing laws on sexual desires or sexuality and are only trying to. Instead the law will be based on the judges' own whims, someone's "gay" affectation, behaviors, self-definitions or perhaps effeminacy, perceptions of effeminacy, etc.etc. but such laws are never going to be what they say they are because they are based on the lie of trying to define people objectively by something like their sexual desires/"orientations".
I was hoping that Mike would dialogue. Perhaps with the holiday weekend he's been too busy. Maybe he'll come back and discuss this tomorrow as there are some interesting ideas we should hammer out.
Commenting by HaloScan
