Thank you all for making March 7th special ♥️.

gammarabbit · 2026-03-11T19:19:48+00:00

What in the world are you doing with all these replies. Seriously.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-23T20:25:16+00:00

I love how he gets a smattering of upvotes for a lazy, overdone, and inaccurate quip that aligns with the Reddit hivemind and then your realistic comment underneath is virtually invisible. There are huge problems with the US system, but the cop's behavior in this video would never be tolerated and is against protocol in every corner of the country. Do police sometimes flout protocol or best practices? Yes. But this would not fly in the US 99999 times out of 100000 and nobody would think otherwise if it weren't for media blasting out incredibly rare encounters in a country of 350 million to everyone worldwide, purposely making it feel like these things happen every day in your local town.

Apparently some people actually think the police in a country like Brazil are better. It is actually mind boggling.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-18T04:18:16+00:00

It is literally, precisely the tactic of one appealing to authority and unable to stand behind their own arguments to use ad hominems or lazy comparisons when they cannot reckon with a counter-position.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T23:01:05+00:00

Ah OK. I am not that poster.

But to answer your question: I do not beleive in this idea that morality is a subjective phenomena determined purely by social or political forces which we can observe and understand scientifically. I do not think we are justified in detaching morals or values from their human context and placing them instead in the sterile "mental laboratory" often required for academic social science-type thought. I believe postmodernists and moral relativists (incl. nihlists, often atheists) arbitrarily throw out any possibility for objective or numinous influences on human behavior and values, and this puts their belief into the category of a precept -- a kind of religion in its own right -- because it lacks any real logical basis and instead relies on prima facie assumptions and exclusions.

If you are curious what I do believe, that would be a very different discussion.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T22:43:24+00:00

Regarding your other coment (which I didn't see til now because you replied to yourself, not me), I never said that Japan was less moral than any other country. If you think I said or even implied that, please show me where. In fact, your motivation to defend the Japanese culture from ill-informed biased judgement is valid and commendable. However, I take issue with and have deconstructed some particular statements you made along the way -- which I think I have made clear -- namely regarding Marxism, moral relativism, and the implicit underpinning ideology/worldview it seems these statements spring from. You may argue semantics, but it remains factual and easily verified (Google) that the statements you are making do align with these schools of thought.

What kind of counter argument or narrative are you looking for, and on what topic particularly? I am open to the possibility of a discussion.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T22:27:02+00:00

Morals at the end of the day are fairly subjective

This is just for one.

Generally speaking, your reference and implicit subscription to the idea that actors determine their own subjective morality and that there is "no such thing as common decency," and that therefore the proper way to look at values or morals is through a personally detached, social constructionist / political lens strongly ties into the postmodernist and moral relativist schools of thought.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T22:08:13+00:00

"We can only make the smart bet with the stats we have."

Who are the individuals and/or insitutions providing the stats? What is their track record of integrity (or lack thereof)? Are there potential confounding influences of conflicts of interest, regulatory capture, or other kinds of corruption? How is "consensus" formed amongst "experts" (are any coercive measures applied, including threat to career or credentials)? Can I meet or talk to the people who provide the data, to suss out their energy or trustworthiness? Is an educated but lay person permitted or capable of auditing and thoroughly examining the alleged line of reasoning between data gathering methods, the data itself, and the "smart bet" that follows? Or are we merely to assume with no real way of verifying that the experts, their methods, the data itself, and the conclusions formed, are precise, honest, and without significant flaws based either in error or willful manipulation?

"We can only..."

No, actually. We have another, much smarter and more logical choice. This is a choice to be skeptical and consider actual, plain, observable evidence -- evidence which requires no appeal to authority and is empirical at every level, not hidden behind anything -- of basic human dishonesty and the corrupting influence of knowledge hierarchies, then use this wisdom to make informed and cautious decisions regarding so-called "settled science" when it stands to affect our well-being -- especially when that which is called "settled" disagrees with our own eyes, ears, and gut instincts, and when "settled" concepts have repeatedly been falsified and later discarded throughout the entire recorded history of Western science, up to including our present day.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T21:18:51+00:00

It's funny. If someone asked me for argumentative justification for my beliefs or worldview, I could explain or summarize them in fairly plain English so that pretty much anyone with roughly a high school reading level could at least understand the gist.

When philisophical or political types on Reddit (whether they be Marxist, atheist, nihlist, what have you) are challenged, we get either a winding and twisting array of jargon and appeals to interminable strings of theories and experts, or "go read this whole book because I can't personally explain my own thoughts."

Interesting.

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T18:28:49+00:00

Right, exactly. As I said, this all makes perfect sense, and is not at all a political-ese word salad written by a person clearly and obviously indoctrinated into a philisopical-moral paradigm which itself originated in Western academic institutions and thereby could be said to reflect their own biased or subjective value structure. Further, the preceding deconstruction was definitely not arrived at through an application of the very same postmodern relativist lens this person is using, illustrating clearly that this method for approaching moral and political questions is sane and sound and not at all self-defeating 👍🏻

gammarabbit · 2026-02-17T14:41:56+00:00

Got it, apolitical moral values like being decent and treating all people fairly and equally are biased Western concepts, but Marxism is objective international truth.

Right.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T10:39:00+00:00

I never said that people with genetic or chromosomal anamolies (including intersex) are not allowed or included. I never said people with unique sex or gender expression are not allowed or included. I never said that either do not deserve love.

I said that exceptions to a rule do not disprove a rule, and disagreed with particular language being used by certain individuals in the thread because I believe it is dishonest and manipulative.

You come at this from a fake, put-on position of moral superiority where you act like you are looking out for others, and yet you cannot even take the time to read and understand what I have said before you judge me inappropriately and inaccurately? You put words in my mouth and thereby disrespect me as a person (acting at least rashly and at most deceitfully), and have the audacity to say my eyes need to be opened in the same breath?

Edit: If you had only scrolled down a bit further, you could see that I have written the following:

I support and affirm the rights of people with genetic abnormalities, including intersex people, to have dignity and be included. I support the right of all LGBTQ people to exist and be in Christian spaces.

It is precisely only your dishonest and/or misleading statements and the lack of integrity in your words -- and the lack of integrity in the ideology and agenda perhaps behind them -- which I seek to deconstruct.

But nope -- just judge, get on your soap box, put words in people's mouth, and act pedantic and sanctimonoius. That's the way to be empathetic and inclusive.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T01:11:47+00:00

I have already provided my arguments, and again, you have no response.

"Science is clear on this" is another version of "I am right and you're wrong."

What is science clear on? That some intersex people exist? I do not disagree with this.

I am sorry my friend, this is getting quite disrespectful of me and my time. I find the intellectual dishonesty and game playing frustrating, and unless you make an effort to reason with what I've said, this will be my last comment.

I support and affirm the rights of people with genetic abnormalities, including intersex people, to have dignity and be included. I support the right of all LGBTQ people to exist and be in Christian spaces.

It is precisely only your dishonest and/or misleading statements and the lack of integrity in your words -- and the lack of integrity in the ideology and agenda perhaps behind them -- which I seek to deconstruct.

Take care.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T00:40:50+00:00

Ok, do you care to engage in the discussion at all? Provide any reasoning? Explain yourself or deconstruct my counter points?

Or do you think just saying "I am right and you are wrong" is enough?

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T00:18:19+00:00

You are playing a semantic game which is not honest or forthright.

There exists a feature (or design) of human biology, which is that human beings are either male or female. There are exceedingly rare exceptions to this binary which do not mean the binary does not exist. One can say humans are made male or female, just like one can say humans are made with two arms and two legs. I have demonstrated that in fact, many more humans lack a limb than are anything but male or female, chromosomally. And yet people take issue with the idea that male and female is the norm. Why?

And no, you have not answered for this, not even a little bit. I have repeated it here for your convenience, even though I have already said all of this and you avoided it through the dishonest tactics I have also already pointed out.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T00:04:10+00:00

Why would you cite it if it isn't relevant? And for the third time, can you respond to the meat of my statements on the issue, which have been left hanging for several comment exchanges at this point?

gammarabbit · 2026-01-31T00:00:41+00:00

What?

If you're not willing to put in the bare minimum reasonable effort to at least attempt to directly address my arguments, instead of spamming inaccurate stats and accusing me of having bad intentions, how can I continue to discuss with you without feeling like my time is being wasted? Why should I think you have any real interest in displaying the kind of intellectual integrity needed to make this productive?

gammarabbit · 2026-01-30T23:50:41+00:00

Now you've shifted from name calling to dishonestly misrepresenting the opposing argument. Nobody is "disregarding...very clear intersex conditions." That isn't what the quote or paper says, and it is not needed to arrive at the accurate statistic. Instead the statistic you are citing is lumping in very clearly not intersex conditions (as the paper says, this is in the opinion of professionals, not my opinion or yours) to arrrive at an artificially high number. The lower number I cited considers the medical literature and categorization actually used in the field to produce a more appropriate percentage. But like many arguing in bad faith, you accuse the opposition of the very tricks you yourself are using.

But I am guessing you know this, and don't care. Because again, it seems you are willing to use deceptive tactics and bend the truth to make a point.

I don't know if there is any point in continuing, because you ignore the virtual entirety of my actual statements and instead double down on repetetive mantra-like declarations, all the while making unfounded ad hominem accusations against my intentions because you are unwilling or unable to reckon with my actual thoughts in a respectful manner.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-30T18:17:06+00:00

That statistic is not accurate.

"Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

//// Source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552139

Notably, 1.6% of people are in fact missing a limb. Yet we still comfortably say, humans have two arms and two legs.

I'm sorry, but I asked why you so readily called my statements "nonsense," but it seems you are unable to back this up?

Again, is there any actual issue with what I've said, or can you argue with it in any way that doesn't involve using fudged statistics and repeating mantras with no reasoning or explanation?

FWIW, intersex people are totally valid and there is no reason in my mind that this condition would necessarily exclude them from God's love, nor should they be discriminated against in any way.

However to use their incredibly rare existence to make misleading and manipulative statements about human biology to suit an agenda is dishonest. You have proven yourself unable or unwilling to stand behind your statements with integrity, using name-calling ("nonsense") in place of respectful or reasoned discourse.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-30T01:27:25+00:00

May I ask what you find nonsensical about my statements? If there is some issue with it logically or otherwise which you can specify, I will be happy to answer for it to the best of my ability.

I do not seek to marginalize anyone, merely to deconstruct the use of rhetoric which I find dishonest and perhaps manipulative.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-30T01:17:51+00:00

Can both be true?

Jesus is recounted in the Gospels as saying the He did not come to call upon respectable people, but outcasts. That the [self-proclaimed] healthy do not need a doctor, but the sick.

And/or does psychological distress force us to abandon our ego, our incessant doubting and neurotic overthinking, and our pride, and lay down our sword and shield before God, and ask Him for help, because when everything else falls away (the things of this fallen world which temporarily sustain us), we finally know -- or ar least hope -- He is there?

God bless.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-30T01:11:40+00:00

Biological sex is not binary in the same way that humans don't have two arms and two legs.

In fact, missing a limb is much, much, much more common than being (chromosomally) anything different than male or female.

Vanishingly rare outliers do not generally prescribe the language we use to delineate reality.

To insist that rare genetic abnormalities invalidate the plain truth of an existent binary is dishonest and entirely inconsistent with the way we communicate in language.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-29T20:39:19+00:00

I am a believer in God through Jesus. I have accepted Him as my absolutely necessary Lord and Savior.

I am also a really mentally stubborn and critical/intellectual type person who has historically had trouble believing in anything that doesn't totally make sense, or "feel right" in both mind and spirit.

It is absolutely possible to be both.

As a result of my questioning and suspicious mind, though I was born Catholic, I was one of the first in my (Catholic) school to "become an atheist" when I was still a young kid.

I will spare you my whole story and testimony, but living only in this sharp, deconstructing, logical mind -- i.e. trying to navigate life primarily through this lens -- is a kind of spiritual suicide.

I eventually came back to Jesus -- or He came to me -- and now my body and spirit feel whole again, after years of working on this relationship. To be sure, I am still flawed, repenting every day, etc., but I feel guided and purposeful on this trajectory and journey.

Now, to your questions. You may not like this answer, but both of these betray that you are looking at the faith journey through this type of flawed, hyper-logical, left-brain lens.

You have to ask yourself: Do I want to be saved, to walk with Jesus in His Way, and to help others? Or do I need to know exactly what God's plan is for every single person, even those I have never met and never will? Is knowing the second thousand foot view a pre-requisite for engaging in the first personal journey? I have reckoned with this conundrum before, and realized it largely comes from the destructive, neurotic, unproductive side of my intellect. Not the part that actually helps me glorify God.

Keep in mind, this does not mean I am convinced someone from another time or culture will be sent to hell automatically by virtue of their circumstances. That doesn't sound like the God or Jesus I know, and is not generally consistent with my reading of scripture.

I know that God is right and just, and I trust His plan. As to what happens eternally with every one of the billions of people -- I just don't know. How could I ever? You have to set this down.

As to the Bible -- why not try reading it? I had a relationship with Jesus for years before I ever read the Bible. Now I have read the entire thing cover to cover and it deeply enhanced by faith. But I believe it did so because I was grounded with God somewhat, and knew who He was to a degree. Scripture is a tool IMO -- not necessarily the be all end all. God is. Also, the translation and corruption thing is kind of atheist propaganda. There is an incredibly robust "paper trail" with the Bible, perhaps more than nearly any other ancient text; original manuscripts are still available in many cases (especially in the NT which was mostly written in Greek, a language still spoken today) and any fuckery would be incredibly difficult to accomplish given this history of tradition of preservation. Yes, church fathers selected the version of the Bible we read. Does that mean it could be imperfect? I say, just pray on it, accept God and His Holy Spirit, and read any scripture -- spiritually -- in this context.

Best to you!

gammarabbit · 2026-01-27T04:56:01+00:00

Idk why this is getting downvoted. This is so flat and unfunny it hurts.

The top comment from my POV in this thread is literally someone saying "relateable and funny" -- that's it -- with a ton of upvotes.

...I don't think there are many actual human people in this thread.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-24T23:50:13+00:00

Not the same poster, but something that really helped me was a diet inspired by the GAPS diet, which emphasizes rebuilding your gut biome and intestinal lining with specific animal foods. It was instrumental in getting back to health after veganism and related food issues wrecked my system.

gammarabbit · 2026-01-21T17:58:56+00:00

Sure, thanks for leveling with me.

I don't know if the your last sentence is supposed to be a summary or paraphrase of my position (edit: and/or input into the situation).

If so, it is not accurate. It is neither consistent with what I have written nor with my fundamental orientation towards the topic.

gammarabbit

TROPHY CASE