black racists don’t like me commenting on their racism — censorship for all…. who aren’t liberalists

[ Himself.wordpress.com ]

tracking moralphobia: Neologisminess

thank you loyal minions

Neologisminess

“If Truthiness is not neologism neither is moralphobia! The neologisminess value of a word fades in proportion to the fame of the one who utters the word? Misunderestimate must have an even lower neologisminess than truthiness’s neologisminess!”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Truthiness

Wait until Ann Coulter uses the word….

when pro-queer lobby invades in-bedroom education, parents should not be offended?? mmmm liberalese hypocrisy

riiiight. And what of other deviants like some sociopaths? ‘They were born with the inclination to rape and murder. They are entitled to their feelings. You cannot tell them not to derive sexual pleasure from torturing innocent people nor can you prevent them from sating themselves’

isn’t relativism fun?

wait.. the typical response will make some reference to hurt or injury and or consent. The *thumbnailed* response is to have you recognize intangible injury, as from this thread the non-physical damage done to a child, transcendental if you will. If you cannot admit of the former then the discussion is over as your values are such.. your attempt to inflict your deviant expectation of warped-tolerance. If you do grasp the concept we can explore further the type of injury upon another in a consensual deviant sexual relationship and the nature of love, which has not yet been explored here.

Consent does not mitigate harm. Choice does not effect justice. Perception does not effect change in the object. Freedom is not license. Unwanted consequences do not cease to exist.

Homosexual acts, as with other deviant activities with regard to grave issues, are an affront to the dignity of the actor and recipient, and then some.

The hypocritical intolerance is rife. Why can’t you people be tolerant of parents who don’t wish to scandalize their own children? That’s awfully hateful of you. Only you have the right to be offended? Why is that exactly?

What about to each his own?

You queers get bent out of shape when you think other people are controlling how you live, but yet when the pro-deviant movement tries regulate what parents teach their children, and those same parents object you’re shocked? Keep your moralphobia to yourself.

You deny absolute truth, and then insist that the tenants of liberalism are the only truth? Nope, no faulty logic there.

Anarchy for all?

(As a teeny tiny minority are you sure that’s a wise ideology for you deviants to pursue?)

think the way the “free” thinkers want you to think… or be accused or not-thinking for yourself or of conformance

mmm liberalism… great stuff!

( yeah, decide for yourself… as long as its not deciding to pursue faith because then you wouldn’t be thinking the way the “free” thinkers want you to think. )

false dilemma fallacy. God and science aren’t mutually exclusive.
Interpreting a foundations story for an ancient desert tribe literally
gets us nowhere.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Where did the 4 forces come from, natural selection?

nothing is better than heaven
a ham sandwich is better than nothing
clearly… a ham sandwich is better than heaven

We need more churches.  More would lead to a better outcoume, like an “infinite number” of
monkeys in a room with writing implements. But religion definately
needs more synergy, and openness where all beliefs are just as good as
the next like in those lovely Methodist TV commercials. Thank the
spaghetti monster for liberalism! Contention and strife are an
illusion. Each is obviously entitled to the be sole arbiter of truth.

yes, something is more fit to survive than nothing… that’s why it won the evolutionary race.  Its obvious that order can come from lack of order, and by its own volition, especially without agency.

As all the other science minded people know deep down in their hearts its well within the scope of science to ask why the universe was created.  Science answers all.  It is without limitation.

Why not to shop at walmart this Christmas season … or any time … until Walmart re-adopts its founder’s Christian values

Would Jesus Shop at Wal-Mart?

Jesus might ’shop’ at walmart because he ate with sinners, reprobates, and the like.  Jesus loves all including those with honosexual tendancies.  Remember he forgave the whore telling her to go AND sin no more… not hey your cool have a nice day.  Activities not chaste (or otherwise not virtuous) are not to be tolerated… the person is in need of conversion, repentance, forgivness, absolution, and amended behavior.

The question is: should YOU shop at Walmart today?  especially given their new position of donating 5% of proceeds to pro-homosexual-activity (anti-Christian) advocacy groups…  obviously the answer is certainly not!  Just as YOU shouldn’t buy Ben n Jerry ice cream as a large slice of their proceeds are donated to pro-natal-child-slaughter-houses (abotion).

Homosexual activites are sinful (evil) and therefore must NOT be tolerated, nor should one tolerate, encourage, or enable others to do or support likewise.  The same is true for pro-wrong-choice groups (abotion).

united methodist church: its all good

that’s right, join up and believe whatever you want, you’re welcome there.  its all good: nothing is wrong as long as you believe its right.  A church that advertises liberalism.

WOW

that’s some nerve

its the kind of church secular humanists would like

this is exactly why wikipedia has little value — infested by liberalists and hypocritical deviants

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Homophobia

I am confused. If we aren’t holding words to their literal meaning, why are we writing encyclopedia entries about them?   — bikeable (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The pedophiles and liberalists have on many occasions deleted WORDS like “moralphobe” and “moralphobia” calling them neologisms all the while wrongly tolerating the entry on the colloquialism “homophobia”.  Double standard?  The talk article even linked to “Moralityphobia“.  It was swiftly delted in a state of frantic moralphobia.

Moralphobia APTLY describes the fear driving the deletion of the word itself.  As commented above there’s no place in wikipedia for the colloquialism “homophobia”.

wikipedia moralphobia — deletion log filled with moralphobic comments

Moralphobia

Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

• In a world where there can be homo”phobia” there can certainly be
  moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential:
  caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem
  • Unfortunately I have no idea what “moralphobia” is. Neither does the OED or Webster’s. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • fortunately “homophobia” hasn’t long been in the OED. We’re
      witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is
      quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki
      article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem
      • I think the “oft touted tolerance” left the building at the precise
        moment you started ranting about “moral deviancy.” And don’t call me a
        liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • And how much ranting is in this article:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_deviant Is it the word “deviant”
          that has set you off? Why don’t you move to delete the previously cited
          article? Comment by User:Crushthem
      • We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we’re witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. –Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • right because that argument didn’t apply to this article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia What are you people
    ‘afraid’ of? Comment by User:Crushthem
    • “Neologism” means “new word”. A word that only gets 8 Google hits
      and isn’t in any dictionary doesn’t need an article on Wikipedia. As
      for what I’m afraid of, I’m afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection
      of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. –Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005
      (UTC)
      • So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to
        google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by
        those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
• Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this notable enough for you: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13476 Comment by User:Crushthem
    • What does that article have to do with “moralphobia”? –Carnildo 09:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Considering the only real “absolute truth” is
  death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight.
  Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don’t disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• “We’re witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia.” Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word,
  it’s still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way.
  See Wikipedia is not… Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice - because I
  never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005
  (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. –Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not
  liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is
  commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The
  same for “bad”. An example: It would be stupid from me to reject
  all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some
  moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in
  other religions, philosophies…) but the catch… It’s all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth
  concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be
  mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this
  neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21
  Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. — Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the nonsensical neoligism. — ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn’t this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: - original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • That’s what I’d say, but there was no “research” involved. It’s
      more of an “original rant.” Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still
      falls under Wikipedia’s definition of original research, but it’s my
      opinion that the word “research” is too good for this crap. –Szyslak)
• Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of
  this “word” outside the mind of the article creator. –Dtobias 04:10,
  23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like
some other VfD subpages, is no longer ‘live’. Subsequent comments on
the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be
placed on the relevant ‘live’ pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live.
Further comments should be made on the article’s talk page rather than
here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Musika for the inured, fornication inclined who totally lack honor

http://rapidshare.de/files/24988720/04_-_Don_t_Make_No_Promises__Your_Body_Can_t_Keep_.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25083806/Alone_in_Death_s_Shadow.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25083974/The_Declaration_of_Indifference.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25084902/The_Sinful_Ensemble.mp3.html
http://rapidshare.de/files/25085410/The_widdershins_jig.mp3.html

wikipedia reveals its lack of value beyond the scope of hard science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon8

.. of course there’s also their inane self referential use of ‘neologism’.

FLASH PANIC … for simpletons

the call of fornication — selfishness that murders

the worst part is that MANY birth “control” pills are in actuality ABORTIFACIENTS. Yes, your fornication generates life, and the “control” prevents the single cell human from implanting (for long) in the uterine wall!!

StraightPride.com - the right to be proud .. a queer free zone

clothes to wear proudly

http://straightpride.com/

straight pride is nothing queer

queers should not get the benefits of marriage

queers cannot be married. Being not-married couples cannot receive any benefits of marriage anymore than a single person can claim the benefits of marriage.

:duh:

Patrick Guerriero is … well an advocate of Satan

Do we need to amend the Constitution to ban queer abusive re-definition of marriage?

Hmmm. Pat says no. He claims as the majority of people affirm that marriage is to be between a man and a woman we need not modify the Constitution.

Wait.. don’t we live in a demrocratic republic? Didn’t those same most people affirm that slavery should be [banned]? Did we really need to amend the Constitution?

Oh, it doesn’t matter what the majority wants in a democracy when it offends a teeny, tiny, perverse minority!

Queer advocates of satan: marriage isn’t really a big issue. Gas prices are more imporant, oh and the economy. So since its not an issue we shouldn’t be wasting any time on it.

most people: shut up already

video-recording highschool cheerleader dancing a crime? only mental cripples think so

WHY is it considered a crime to video-record the SALACIOUS dancing of highschool cheerleaders? Hello? Their LUDE gyrations are performed IN PUBLIC with school- and parental SANCTION (which is really the crime). Their behaviour is age-INNAPROPRIATE.

Their lascivious dancing: not a crime
watching them dance: not a crime
TV broadcasting them: not a crime
recording tv broadcast: not a crime

recording their dancing yourself: a crime?….. NO. Clearly not.
Selling that recording: a crime??….. NO. Clearly not.

“The Media”, school administrators, and some parents think the latter two are crimes. That is SUCH POOR LOGIC.

If recording them is producing pornography, then the cheerleaders’ actions are pornographic. Then the parent’s and the school are guilty of at least: child abuse, some kind of sex crime, child endangerment, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

you’re a liberalist

Intolerant of intolerance? yeah, you’rea a liberalist. See also my article on the evilness of whiteness

See also: moralphobe (word coined at himself.blogspot.com)