Comments for Martin Ssempa Spares Not The Rod at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 109 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:19:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-16515 Firstly, I think it is cheap and in poor taste of you to imply that I have leanings toward bestiality but here is my brief response. [i]"HIV/AIDS is NOT just spread by sex"[/i] Nobody has suggested that it is but HIV/AIDS is spread primarily through promiscuous and homosexual sex. Initially, the rapid spread of the disease was through homosexual sex. [i]"And who is to say it would not have spread less rapidly but just as diversely if sex were not a factor"[/i] A preposterous supposition that goes against the facts. Promiscuous sex is responsible for the spread of the disease which is why 'safe sex' was seen as the prevention tool. How far do you think the virus would have spread if it was found to be in meat and not through sexual contact? People would become vegetarians overnight until the removal of the virus from the food chain Promiscuous sex is more difficult for people to quit than meat! [i] Using this as an argument against homosexuality is as dense as claiming shrimp is a poisonous animal because eating it almost killed me last year[/i]. I am not using AIDS as an argument against homosexuality. I am using morality. Gods moral/sexual code was recorded in the bible long before AIDS existed. Adherence to this code would see the elimination of all sexually transmitted disease. Monogamy and clean standards are too high a price for some, hence the mess we are in. - popsaw Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:26:22 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-16512 All this talk about how incest is so bad because of birth defects etc, then why do animal breeders use line breeding to make certain animals stronger? I used it in breeding siamese cats, mainly father to daughter, and bred three national champs. As far as birth defects, I destroyed 3 kittens in 25 years for cleft palate, and lost maybe 5 to unknown causes out of over 300 kittens born. HIV/AIDS is NOT just spread by sex!! ANY protein carrier, such as blood or embroytic fluid can carry it. The first cases under one scenerio of its beginnings report raw MEAT was eaten that carried the virus. Promiscious sex may have spread it faster, but its beginnings are very doubtful to be in sex!!! And who is to say it would not have spread less rapidly but just as diversely if sex were not a factor. Using this as an argument against homosexuality is as dense as claiming shrimp is a poisonous animal because eating it almost killed me last year. Having lived with cows, horses, dogs, cats, chickens etc, etc, etc despite all sorts of liasons, flirting, and even blatant sexual advances, the only animals I ever really saw who got excited by another species advances enough to actual attempt to really carry through with the act other than superfisiously were human beings. Esp. male human beings. The male human being's brain is, in the most part, but not always, so obsessed with sex that they see sexual advances in a mosquito rubbing its legs together it seems sometimes. Personally, I think this guy popsaw has the warm loving glances for his cow, or maybe his cocker spaniel. Incidentally, making fun of my spelling errors is fine, I am a severe dyslexic with a PHD in Mining Engineering, NOT ENGLISH. - mysticlady Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:11:15 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-16001 [i]Okay Popsi. I agree 100% with you. You are totally obsessed with sex[/i] I did not write the article, the points I have raised are relevant ani in context with the article. I have been courteous and responsive to all posters an nowhere have I posted anything perverse or inapropriate. Some issues are uncomfortable and I have addressed the head on. I have no problem with opposing views but I feel you are abusive and rude and I have reported you for the following comments:- [i]You are totally obsessed with sex. I sincerely hope that you have no contact with any young people. [/i] - popsaw Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:57:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15980 Okay Popsi. I agree 100% with you. You are totally obsessed with sex. You have to completely twist everyone's statements into your perverse viewpoint, no matter how clear and unequivocal the statement might be. I will leave it to the next brave person to try and have rational conversation with you. I sincerely hope that you have no contact with any young people. I was hoping that you might have a teeny, tiny bit of sense. :'( PS. Yes, that means I give up, you can have the final word. I will no longer even try to talk with you :P - Willy K Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:16:54 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15979 Your response of[i] I said consensual adult sex is nobody's business[/i] was not necessarily a condemnation of incest law (which I asked if you condemned). You appear to be suggesting that this IS your answer and on so on the basis that you condemn incest law between consenting adults, you are condemning a law that is there to prevent serious congenital. This law hurts nobody and is there for the protection of society so in conclusion, I heartily disagree with your stance and state that certain practices between consenting adults ARE he business of others, for the reasons stated here and on previous posts. - popsaw Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:54:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15978 Back on topic for a moment.... Did anyone see the ABC news correspondent asking/suggesting to Ssempa that people who are raging homophobes have questions about their own sexuality? I thought Ssempa was going to hit him! - Willy K Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:47:54 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15977 [quote]written by popsaw, March 12, 2010 You did not answer the question. You clearly find this topic uncomfortable in which case no participation would have been advisable. the question is still open but I accept you may will decline to answer. If that is the case, thanks for your brief, incomplete'attempt' at defending your views.[/quote] I responded clearly. Do you think you being patronizing and dismissive is the way to show the world you're serious? I said consensual adult sex is [b]nobody's[/b] business. I'm not [i]defending [/i]my views or [i]attacking[/i] your views. The only conflict here seems to be in your mind. You really have a problem with people talk straight don't you? Don't take my criticism as toooooo seriously though. ;) - Willy K Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:41:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15976 You did not answer the question. You clearly find this topic uncomfortable in which case no participation would have been advisable. the question is still open but I accept you may will decline to answer. If that is the case, thanks for your brief, incomplete'attempt' at defending your views. :( - popsaw Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:27:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15975 [quote]written by popsaw, March 12, 2010 Interesting that you (rightly condemn Ssempa but do not mention the law makes criminalizes incest. Since you hold that it is it is nobodies business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do, would it be fair to say that you oppose/ condemn incest laws against preventing consenting adults engaging in incestuous sex? [/quote] It's [b]nobody's[/b] business, that includes law-makers and everyone else. There you are Popsi, is that enough of a [i]mention[/i] of sex laws? Stay away from peoples pee-pees. You really have a perverse need to condemn people. What the frak is wrong with you anyway? :P ;) - Willy K Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:17:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15974 Interesting that you (rightly condemn Ssempa but do not mention the law makes criminalizes incest. Since you hold that it is it is nobodies business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do, would it be fair to say that you oppose/ condemn incest laws against preventing consenting adults engaging in incestuous sex? - popsaw Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:05:17 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15973 [quote]written by popsaw, March 06, 2010 Do you condemn or condone incest amongst consenting adults in private? Do you condemn or condone homosexuality amongst consenting adults in private? [/quote] My answer to both questions is - [b]I don't care, it's none of my fraking business.[/b] Why do [b]you[/b] make it [i]your[/i] business to condemn/condone what consenting adults do? [i][b]NOBODY[/b][/i] wants/needs your perverse sexual ideas to guide them. :P PS. You should join Mr. Ssempa in his quest, I'm sure you two would make a lovely couple. ;) - Willy K Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:52:58 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15972 When all is said and done, the article does not come under the umbrella of 'an educational resource on the pseudoscientific paranormal and the supernatural supernatural'.This is a moral issue and since morals differ culturally, there is no absolute universal standard by which Ssempa's methods may be exposed as fake or wrong. In short, there is nothing here to debunk! - popsaw Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:01:11 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15971 I thought it was interesting that Ssempsa knew exactly where to go and find gay porn. Does anyone else suppose it was from his private collection? - BJB Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:53:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15967 [i]They are individuals and have to make their own decisions. Getting back to the original discussion: it's not up to me to enforce my morality on them.[/i] I believe it is a parents duty to train up children to have a good moral compass. This is achieved with discipline and mental regulating. As adults, they are free moral agents and it is not your job to 'force your morality' on them but as children , surely it is a parents job to enforce morality? I see morality as a 'highway code'. The rules can change but it benefits everybody when it is universally adhered to. Deviation presents danger to oneself and innocent persons. Regarding Portugal. The authorities are rightly targetting the traffickers and by freeing up resources and finance that would normally be used to prosecute users, this show that they are keen to prevent drugs getting into the country and therefore prevent drug use. Surely you are not presenting Portugal as drug tolerant? I would say they are sympathetic o the addicts but intolerant of the traffickers. Drug abuse(use of hard drugs for the purpose of obtaining a 'high')whilst initially only effect the person, the overwhelming evidence is that it creates addiction which in turn is detrimental to society in so many ways. So whilst it is not a major crime to possess and use these substances, trafficking and dealing IS usually severely dealt with. generally , society does not want a nation of drug addicts, even legal ones! [i]they have not gone about it in a consistent way since alcohol, cars, and fatty foods are still legal in most places. [/i] Those things are only harmful when abused o not used properly. Recreational moderate hard drug use is detrimental at any level and produces no benefit. Fatty foods and alcohol are harmless in moderation, alcohol being beneficial and I think I would prefer my family to live in a community where everyone eats fatty food but does not abuse drugs as opposed to one where everyone abuses drugs but does not eat fatty foods.As for cars, I assume you refer to pollution. I personally welcome any reasonable measures to reduce traffic and pollution. As regards Portugal, they are tolerant of addicts i order to be more effective in preventing trafficking (of which they are intolerant) This frees up financial resources and man power to enable more effective control of the problem. As I say, few would support your view that a free market should be created for drugs (including hard drugs) since most people would fear a nation of State sanctioned drug addicts. Those that are in 'genuine' need of hard drugs for non recreational purposes are able to obtain them through their doctor. In my view, the Portugal 'model' is a good one! - popsaw Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:10:05 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15965 I retract the use of the word evil. You're right, it's not descriptive in this context. Let me revise that to say that alcohol is the equal in addiction and harm potential to anything you are calling "hard" drugs. I have a chip on my shoulder against alcohol which usually manifests in rhetorical hyperboly like that. Drinking or drugs, it is still up to the person. Use of drugs or alcohol in my family wouldn't concern me, but rather misuse or abuse. It doesn't really matter what it is. It's how it's used. My kids are grown up, so it's up to them what they want to put in their bodies. As long as they're well informed as to what they're doing and they know the risks, then it's up to them. They are individuals and have to make their own decisions. Getting back to the original discussion: it's not up to me to enforce my morality on them. I'm not sure where you're going with this special pleading, making it specific to my children. An appeal to emotion doesn't really change my perspective on morality. I don't like to mainline heroin, and I think it's a bad idea overall, but it's not up to me to make that decision for others, and it should not be up to the government to decide what is or is not good for the individual. I believe that if a junky wants help there should be help available, and we do an abyssmal job of that in this country, but I still don't believe it's up to the government to try to anticipate ways in which I might harm myself and prevent them. Even if it is, they have not gone about it in a consistent way since alcohol, cars, and fatty foods are still legal in most places. As far as the Netherlands is concerned, I think you know what I meant. But if you don't like that one, then let's try Portugal. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal[/url] - Griz Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:42:13 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15963 [i]I think you're ducking the issue here. No, heroin does not really have a benefit administered daily like a glass of wine. But its derivatives still have legitimate medical uses. I don't get the point you're trying to make with the distinction.[/i] I am merely disputing this quote of yours... "[b]alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug,[/b]" It is a rather curious statement because alcohol is not evil neither is heroin or cocaine. The evil is caused by misuse and that can apply to both. Which is the greater curse on society, I say, hard drugs, you say alcohol. However, doctors recommend moderate amounts of alcohol as producing health benefits. They do not recommend hard drug use (in fact it is called drug abuse)and in fact discourage it, for obvious reasons. If my young son or daughter started drinking moderately, I would no be concerned. If they started on hard drugs (even small doses) I would (rightly) be distressed. I assume the reverse is true for you and you would prefer 'moderate' hard drug use over moderate drinking for such ones? [i] Using the term "hard" with drugs is not a technical term, it's a colloquialism[/i] Neither is using the term 'evil'with alcohol as you did . However, please understand that by hard drugs I mean Class A or 1. Heroine, cocaine, amphetamines etc. Because you stated "[b]alcohol is a greater evil than any currently illegal drug"[/b] I am referring to hard drugs to show the absurdity of this statement. [i]Again, alcohol is legal. 'Nuff said as far as I'm concerned. It's funny that you wish the experiment was not near Britain, because it's closer to you than it is to me and it's called The Netherlands.[/i] A far as I am aware class A drugs are not illegal in he Netherlands or are you trying to water down you stance to make it appear less shocking. If you are now referring to cannabis, it is illegal in the Netherlands but generally the policy is non-enforcement. Hard drugs are illegal and possession supply is considered a serious offence. Sorry to beak all this to you! - popsaw Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:35:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15962 "Homosexual temple prostitutes certainly WOULD have sex with males, being as they are homosexual. They may also have sex with females but that would make hem bisexual.At any rate, I did not say or assume that they would only have sex with males." So by that I infer that you agree that the "sin" in question here is prostitution, that there is no condemnation of homosexuality in that passage. "Heroin is not inherently beneficial like alcohol." I think you're ducking the issue here. No, heroin does not really have a benefit administered daily like a glass of wine. But its derivatives still have legitimate medical uses. I don't get the point you're trying to make with the distinction. Regardless of its benefit administered as a daily medicine, alcohol is as addictive as opiates, and more addictive than many other drugs you term "hard." If people can be counted on to rationally self administer alcohol (which they can't considering the number of alcohol related deaths each year) then why can't they be allowed to self administer similar substances. Orally administered opiates are depressants just like alcohol, deliver a similar high, and are no more addictive. Why shouldn't they be as available? "I think the cost to society (should your ideas ever be implemented) socially, would far exceed what you have stated. A government sanctioned and controlled drugs market would create a nation of addicts. I cannot imagine how exactly this would pan out but I hope the trial runs are as far away from Britain as possible." Again, alcohol is legal. 'Nuff said as far as I'm concerned. It's funny that you wish the experiment was not near Britain, because it's closer to you than it is to me and it's called The Netherlands. "By he way, I asumed you knew what I meant by hard drugs since I had already cited heroin and cocaine in the same context. In Britain we call hard drugs class controlled substances." Using the term "hard" with drugs is not a technical term, it's a colloquialism, and means something different depending on who you're talking to. Since we live in different countries, a common nomenclature might be difficult. In the US, we have a schedule of drugs. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that have no medical value, or server purposes for which there are better choices, and are illegal for anything but tightly controlled research. This list include heroin, mescaline, LSD, and, strangely, marijuana, along with a hundred or so other things. Schedule II, drugs that can be perscribed for certain medical uses, include cocaine, opium and derivatives, methadone, and most of the codeine/codone drugs that represent modern pain killers like Lortab or Oxycontin (which it occurs to me might go by other names in your country.) There are five schedules and the lowest contains things like codeine cough syrup, which still requires a perscription but is not so tightly controlled. So in that context, "hard" drugs could be anything on any schedule, or maybe just things on schedule I. However, marijuana is on schedule I and it is neither physically addicting nor harmful. Alcohol is on no schedule, it's readily available, and is far more addicting and more harmful than most substances on the schedules. So that's why the term "hard" drugs needs definition because whatever definition you try to apply, it can be contradicted with marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco (we haven't even talked about that, but there is a drug that is nothing but harmful, more addictive than anything but mainlined heroin, and kills thousands of people a year; talk about nations of addicts!) The bottom line is that drugs are not "hard" or "soft", they are what they are, and how they're used determines their benefit or harm. - Griz Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:57:17 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15959 [i] I assume you're asking why "temple prostitutes" wouldn't be a synonym for homosexual? Because temple prostitues were not exclusively homosexual. It's your prejudice that makes you assume that the male temple prostitutes only had sex with other males.[/i] Homosexual temple prostitutes certainly WOULD have sex with males, being as they are homosexual. They may also have sex with females but that would make hem bisexual.At any rate, I did not say or assume that they would only have sex with males. "There is no beneficial amount of hard drugs" [i]That's not true. That's part of the propaganda that you've bought into. Cocaine belongs to a family of anasthetics that are used constantly, as was cocaine until it was outlawed because of racial tension. Heroin, when injected, is metabolized to morphine, which as we all know remains a popular pain killer to this day. But your argument breaks down when you look at the most abused drugs, painkillers and amphetamines.[/i] Heroin is not inherently beneficial like alcohol. A moderate amount of red wine etc is good for the heart. What benefit is a moderate amount of heroin? Pain relief is a 'diversionary tactic' since whilst it may relieve the pain (that is not a health benefit)it still has adverse effects. Employing your reasoning, baseball bats are beneficial since if someone is in pain, you can knock the unconscious with one. mmediate pain relief. Adverse symptons will occur upon waking though. ;) By he way, I asumed you knew what I meant by hard drugs since I had already cited heroin and cocaine in the same context. In Britain we call hard drugs class controlled substances. [i]I forgot to answer your final question: am I in favor of an open market for "hard" drugs. I think I made it clear: yes, I am. spending[/i]. I appreciate your candor but I suspect you will raise a lot of eyebrows with this. [i]It will eliminate about 800,000 arrests per year in the US and a great deal of law enforcement effort and spending.[/i] I think the cost to society (should your ideas ever be implemented) socially, would far exceed what you have stated. A government sanctioned and controlled drugs market would create a nation of addicts. I cannot imagine how exactly this would pan out but I hope the trial runs are as far away from Britain as possible. - popsaw Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:55:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15957 I forgot to answer your final question: am I in favor of an open market for "hard" drugs. I think I made it clear: yes, I am. I don't really know what form that would take because in reality it'll never happen. But I believe that marijuana will be legalized in the next decade or so and that's a good first step. It will eliminate about 800,000 arrests per year in the US and a great deal of law enforcement effort and spending. I know what you think you mean by "hard" drugs, even though the term is arbitrary and all but meaningless, but I think you'd benefit from a little research on the subject. People tend to get a very one sided, propaganda enhance view of "drugs" and addiction, and there are more sides than that to the story. The potential for physical addiction is not nearly as scary as the government would like to make it out to be. - Griz Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:19:09 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/900-martin-ssempa-spares-not-the-rod.html#comment-15954 I assume you're asking why "temple prostitutes" wouldn't be a synonym for homosexual? Because temple prostitues were not exclusively homosexual. It's your prejudice that makes you assume that the male temple prostitutes only had sex with other males. It's clear in that context that the prostitution part is the issue. Paul was writing in Greek to Greeks who at that time were very familiar with homosexuality and pederasty and had many specific words to describe aspects of that culture. If Paul meant homosexuals he would have used ANDROkoites, which specifically means homosexual, not a previously unattested word, ARSENOkoites, which later was used in a heterosexual context. "There is no beneficial amount of hard drugs" That's not true. That's part of the propaganda that you've bought into. Cocaine belongs to a family of anasthetics that are used constantly, as was cocaine until it was outlawed because of racial tension. Heroin, when injected, is metabolized to morphine, which as we all know remains a popular pain killer to this day. But your argument breaks down when you look at the most abused drugs, painkillers and amphetamines. One of the most abused drugs, oxycontin, is one of the most popular pain killer, oxycodone. It's the same pain killer found in percocet. Hydrocodone is found in Lortab and Vocodin. These are perscribed every day for a number of ailments and have a great potential for abuse. Adderal, ritalin, and other stimulants similar to methamphetamine are also commonly perscribed medcines. Now you could certainly make this case for LSD, mescaline (peyote), or psylocybin (mushrooms), but these are among the least dangerous "hard" drugs out there. Alcohol, on the other hand, is abused more than any other drug, is as hard or harder on the abuser, and is readily available legally just about anywhere in the world. In my family there is a heroin addict, several meth addicts, and an alcoholic. The heroin addict is clean and sober right now, the meth addicts are mostly in prison, and the alcoholic is dead. In the end, drug abuse and addiction is dependant on a person. No one makes you put the stuff in your body, and believe it or not, there are many many casual users of all these substances that have managed to avoid or overcome addiction (you're corresponding with one now). Making the substances illegal simply creates a black market and promotes violent crime. In the US in the last two decades, voilent crime has fallen EXCEPT for drug related violent crime, a lot of which would go away if they took as simple a step as legalizing marijuana. As far as consequences to others, this is where we differ greatly. You want to punish me ahead of time for what I MIGHT do if I had access to certain drugs. That's not morality, that's thought police. You can punish me IF I do something wrong, not before. Using that logic, we should outlaw alcohol because drunk driving is responsible for the majority of traffic deaths. But we tried that once, and it did exactly what I described, it created a black market that criminals were more than willing to step into. This is why I do not subscribe to an idea of objective morality, especially not one based on ancient literature whose adherents can neither translate correctly nor agree upon the meaning. I, as a citizen of a country, are given certain rights by the establishing documents of that country (in the US case, our constitution.) You have the same rights. Our "morality" should only extend to the interaction between citizens to ensure that no one's rights are violated. Apart from that: "if it harms no one, do what you will." - Griz Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:12:48 +0100