William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Page 2 of 751

Archbishop Denounces Church For Harshness Toward NOWM Community

Say, baby.

Say, baby.

DUBLIN – In his Holy Week and Easter Sunday homilies, Ireland archbishop Dougal O’Toole called Catholicism a “religion of fear” and a “faith of prohibitions,” denouncing the Church for its historic “harshness” towards the NOWM community.

In his Good Friday speech at the Our Mother of You Have To Be Kidding Chapel in Dublin, he remarked, “How is it that the Church and its institutions could at various times in history, and not only in a distant past, have been so judgmental and treated broken people who were entrusted to its care with such harshness?”

“How could we have tried to use the teaching and the merciful way of dealing with sinners to justify or accept harsh exclusion?” he continued. “Think of so many groupings who were misjudged: necrophiliacs who only wanted to love their departed ones, objectum sexuals, woofies and masturbators.”

He went on, “We can be so judgmental and hurtful towards those whom we decide have failed and those who drift outside our self-made ideas of respectability. Who’s to say loving an animal wholly, as woofies do, is wrong? All love is good.”

In his Easter Sunday homily, O’Toole criticized the Catholic Church: “We had created a religion of fear. We are never left with a sensation of being free. When your husband disappears into the bathroom with his little magazine, let him be—let him have his own peace.”

“For many, Christianity had been turned into a faith of prohibitions,” he continued. “Certain theologies spoke about freeing people from sin but had developed a concept of sin and sinner which made it almost impossible for a sinner ever to feel himself or herself truly liberated. The Catholics at the Blessed Body Nudist Camp I spoke to understood this. It’s time we all do.”

The archbishop added, “There were so many rules that many were left with a sense of scrupulosity, which left them trapped and oppressed by guilt and doubts.”

O’Toole has spoken out in the past in support of legally protecting person-fairground ride civil unions as well as the more formal relationships between people and their pets advocated by groups such as Dogs Are People Too. O’Toole has commented that the Catholic Church must change with the times.

Before the 2015 referendum that legalized so-called “living-and-the-dead marriage” in Ireland, O’Toole refrained from telling Catholics how to vote, saying, “I have, however, no wish to stuff my religious views down other people’s throats, but, dammit, I do want to push down their throats the idea of increased sexual freedom.”

And on the day living-and-the-dead marriage passed, O’Toole commented, “I appreciate how necrophiliacs feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution.”

Fr Semaj Nitram, a Jesuit in India, echoed O’Toole’s thoughts at an award acceptance speech at Old Ways Ministries, a group supporting NOWM rights. Fr Nitram was receiving the annual Old Ways “Bridge to Freedom” award.

Fr Nitram said the NOWM community “brought unique gifts to the Church.” He said, “Who better to fix those squeaky kneelers in the pews than objectum sexuals?” He also lamented that “Almost all the Church firings in recent years have focused on NOWM matters.”

He blamed these harsh attitudes on the Catechism, which calls the activities of the NOVM community “objectively disordered.” “Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person,” said Fr Nitram, “The part that gives and receives love, is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel.”

“Of course the hierarchy is not the only group that speaks with authority on these matters. Your voice counts, too,” he added.

Asked by an audience member “How should the Church educate the NOWM community about some of the health dangers of corpse and animal sex?”, Fr Nitram replied, “I have zero experience with that and, I’m being serious, zero expertise, even though I’m a Jesuit, so I don’t know how I would answer that question. But it sounds like manifestations of the unique gifts the NOWM community bring to the Church.”

Note: after this report was filed by our man in the field, we learned a similar article (to the first half of ours) was first published by Rodney Pelletier at Church Militant. Way to go, Rodney!

Update See this for an explanation.

Union Of Nervous Scientists Hate Facts About Global Warming

From Christy’s testimony

Stream: Union Of Nervous Scientists Hate Facts About Global Warming: Don’t say ‘climate change’. We were promised global warming.

No scientist I have ever met has ever—and I mean never—denied the earth’s climate has changed. So obvious are observations of change, that I have never even heard of a civilian denying change, either.

No scientist I have ever met has ever—and again I mean never—denied the earth’s climate has changed in part because of human activities. But then, these same scientists also know that every creature, from aardvarks to zebras, has an influence on the climate. (Didn’t we read recently that spiders both weigh and eat more than men? Think about the climatic havoc these eerie arachnids wreak!)

Because nobody, save the odd lunatic, denies the earth’s climate has changed, and all scientists agree that mankind affects the climate, the term climate chance denier has to be one of the dumbest, inapt, and foolish slogans of our times.

Anybody who uses it proves that she is ignorant with the science of climatology. Or that she has something other than the practice of science of her mind. Like, say, politics.

Take the comments of Ann Reid and her two co-authors writing for the Union of Nervous—oops, make that Concerned—Scientists. Motto: Science for the healthy planet and safer world. Incidentally, before we get to Reid, it is worth emphasizing that planets cannot be healthy or ill. Only things that are live can be healthy or ill. Planets are not alive—though pantheists believe they can be.

Anyway, Reid (and her pals) writes “Is No Place Safe? Climate Change Denialists Seek to Sway Science Teachers.”

There’s the telling phrase: climate change denialists. This is a sure signal we’re about to be treated a political and not scientific discourse.

Seems Reid isn’t happy that Heartland Institute had a conference to which they invited scientists to opine on how likely global warming will destroy us all (I have spoke before). Their answer? Not likely.

Heartland also sent the booklet “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to science teachers across the country. When Reid angrily referenced this book, she twice appended the notation “sic“, which is a signal to readers that the obvious error present in quoted material was not put there by the quoter.

Well, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the booklet title, and nothing is misspelled. And, indeed, the booklet is about why scientists disagree about global warming.

So what was the mistake Reid wanted to signal?

Global warming used to be what they called “climate change”—before the science of global warming went sour. Reid doesn’t like to be reminded that the science of global warming is a failed science.

How do we know it’s failed? Easy.

The primary purpose of any scientific theory is to make skillful predictions of reality. Any scientific theory that cannot do so, is a false or flawed theory. And false or flawed theories should not be relied upon to make decisions about the world, particularly decisions that greatly influence all people.

The theory of dangerous man-made global warming has not made skillful predictions of reality. Congress was reminded of this recently by…[click over to read the rest].

Theory says you can click this link and read the rest. My bet is that this theory makes better predictions than global warming.

Update Mistaking accuracy in simulations and accuracy in predictions of future temperatures is a common error. A sloppy error, and really unexplainable because you’d think scientific training explains the difference. Climate models do a lousy job predicting future temperatures, and this is all that counts if we are to ask questions and make decisions about those predictions. That the models can more-or-less accurately simulate some other measure or derived parameter is of only marginal interest, and beside the point.

Mistaking simulations with predictive accuracy is like a civil engineer saying, “Yes, the bridge fell and many died. But you’ll notice the predictions of the rust factor in the steel in the third arch were almost perfect. Therefore you have to believe the next bridge we build won’t fail like the previous thirty did.”

Hostility May Be Warranted: Berkeley, Wellesley & Beyond

Highlighted screenshot of relevant text, in case the original goes missing

Students at Wellesley are starting to feel their non-GMO fair-trade organic Damascus-steel-cut oats.

No, wait. That can’t be right. Oats are white. Oats are racist. Let me start again.

Students at Wellesley are starting to feel their muscles, and have developed the taste of blood. Regarding those with whom they disagree over political matters, they say “hostility may be warranted“.

The quotation came from the college rag The Wellesley News under the banner “Staff Editorial”, which means those who wrote the piece “Free speech is not violated at Wellesley” didn’t have the courage to sign their names.

The emphasis in the quotation is mine, but it should be yours, too, because why? Because here we have an announcement that students will use hostility to silence and punish those who do not swear fealty to Diversity, Intersectionality, Sodomy, and whatever else the filled-diaper crowd feel (not think) important.

So that, when you stand in a philosophy class at Wellesley and say, “Those two men say they are married to one another, but of course it is metaphysically impossible for two men to be married”, and you next feel the truncheon being laid upside your skull, or the heel of the boot crushing your neck, your last thoughts should not be, “Oh my”, but “I guess they were serious when they said hostility is warranted.”

Serious they are. Intelligent, well-reasoned, courageous and moral they are not. These students are evil.

These students are not just wrong, but immoral. And they are evil and immoral not because they are calling for violence against their enemies per se, because sometimes violence against enemies is, as these students say, warranted. If you saw a black-hooded black-masked black-hearted antifa “protester” charging your way intent on causing harm, you are warranted in using violence to stop him.

The students are evil and immoral in part because we all of us are. We are all sinners. But these students seek to call sin good, and calling sin good is an evil goal. Not only that, but they would use violence to force others to call sin good, or at least use violence to suppress those from calling sin what it is.

The students say, “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”

This is gibberish. What in the world, after all, could “undermine the existence…of others” possibly mean? Saying to a man who is pretending to be a woman that he is, in fact, a man does not “undermine the existence” of this poor fellow. It is an attempt to bring the man back to Reality. Reality is existence.

You can hate Reality for making you a man when you’d rather be a woman, but Reality itself has no hate to it. Saying what is real and true is can never be “hate” speech.

“Hate speech” is an asinine term at any rate. The only people who ever use it with serious intent are full of seething vituperation directed against those who hold to Reality and Tradition. Real hate speech is that which condemns or curses Reality.

“Surely these students won’t get away with actual violence. Our Constitution says we have free speech over political matters!”

Look, friend. The Constitution is only a crusty piece of parchment, subject to interpretation by men. The very kind of effeminate men graduating from places like Wellesley. The Constitution means what the government says it means. And since the government mainly hires graduates from places like Wellesley, the Constitution will soon be said to say that speech is free, but only if that speech meets the test of ideological purity according to these “men without chests”.

I elsewhere wrote “The Violent Rule America’s Campuses: Violent behavior is condoned — as long as the politics are correct“. Violent acts by Reality-denying students is so common that only its absence is remarkable.

It’s not solely students, of course. What did we see in Berkeley? On the latest occasion, Realityophobic students and others attacked those who were exercising their “free speech”. And what did the police do?

Not much. There were a few arrests, but much of the violence was allowed. Police sat and watched it. All indications are that the politicians in charge of the police directed this “looking away”.

The vast majority of time, Realityophobic students (and their keepers and allies) get away with the violence. But now the other side, long used to accepting the Realityophobic violence, is learning to fight back.

And they’re fighting back rather well.

It’s my bet that since the Realityophobes are at long last meeting resistance, the police will begin to act on campuses everywhere. It was well to have them look away when the Relityophobes were winning. But it gets serious when they begin losing.

(Note: I selected from the top videos suggested by YouTube. Undoubtedly there are many better ones.)

Happy Easter!

Hidden in this post is an Easter egg of sorts. Searching for it will be easy for experts, difficult for puzzle novices. This is the kind of brain teaser easily dispatched by veterans. The sole clue that I will give you is that the solution involves a simple progression.

I search for these sort of things systematically, and so should you. Break in a new pencil, for you’ll need some sort of writing tool; maybe a scratch pad.

Letters? There are ten—in the solution, I mean.

Oh that’s a new clue, I just realized. Happy muff!

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2017 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑