Some People Are Just TOO Ignorant to Not Be Funny

I always get a kick out of people who are so bigoted that they can't see just how bigoted they are, and therefore think everyone else is bigoted and they are, well, sane.

From Suzan Cooke, who is almost always good for a laugh...

What the hell is wrong with these sick evil f**king Christians? The world would be a much better place without their hatred in the name of some imaginary invisible magic sky daddy.

Let's see...  You have a group of people who hold a view that is different from the one Cooke holds, but who are motivated by honest concern for the well-being of someone they sincerely believe is on the wrong path, and who are acting in a manner that does not actually harm the person in question...versus a profane and hateful bigot who would deny them the basic right to exist, and who uses what basically amounts to outright lies to attack them.

Funny...and sad, but really, just absolutely amazingly ignorant.  But that is what true bigotry is, absolute, amazing ignorance.  What is truly ironic...I would still defend Cooke's right to be an absolutely, amazingly ignorant bigot....  

Personally, I Take It As A Compliment....

Well, I see that the extremely confused, and often confusing Suzan Cooke has again noticed that I don't share certain views with her, and has again chosen to attack me.  As I said in the title, I take it as a compliment that she is upset at something I said.  Cooke is someone who cannot seem to make her mind just how cozy she wants to be with the transgender.  I suspect she knows she has burned off a lot of what good will she had with the transsexual community with her rather shrill diatribes touting her leftist politics and her overblown ego that make her a legend in her own mind.


Let me state, categorically, and without question, Suzan Cooke is the last person I would ever want to jump on the "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" bandwagon.  Granted, she did early on, but her ego just would not let her own term, "Women Born Transsexual," be replaced by something else.  So, she turned on people who might have, at least on certain specific issues, agree with her.


Since her blog, which I consider a never ending source of humor, began, she had swung periodically between "transsexual separatist" and "transgender."  In Cooke's case, her lefty side wants to join with the transgender kooks in their rebellion.  Her transsexual side pulls her back.  It is sort of fun to watch.


I used to be a member of Cooke's mailing list until I made a suggestion that did not meet with her approval.  Then her partner, Tina, took a dislike to me, and well, it was not pretty.  Something akin to the purging of transsexuals from feminist groups.  I moved on, and very quickly realized that I had lost nothing except a few nasty people I did not need in my life.  


Personally, I pity Cooke.  There are some powerful demons in her life.  I know she has a history of substance abuse, and she clearly is deeply insecure.  Another blogger once did some research and chose not to publish what she found.  She feared it would push Cooke over the edge, and I suspect she was right.


Now, I see that Cooke has teamed up with "Natalie" Reed, who like Cooke, is a rather hateful atheist.  I long ago observed that some atheists seem to have reached some intellectual conclusion that there is no God.  I disagree, but most of them are capable of being decent and congenial folk who only mention their lack of belief if it comes up naturally in a conversation.  They do not feel the need to shout in people's faces, usually as profanely as possible, "I hate God, and refuse to believe in Him!!!"  Yes, that is basically their belief.  They are angry, usually because some human said or did something that hurt them, and they have come to blame God for that slight.  They shake their fist in God's face, and say I hate You, and the worst thing I can do is not believe in You.


All that can really be said for such a person is, God is patient and will welcome them back if they ever feel the need.  In the meantime, the only thing is to pity them, perhaps have a guilty laugh at their expense, and to pray for them.


In the meantime, it is nice to know that Cooke still obsesses over me from time to time.  But hey, it is the least I can offer given all the laughs I have at her expense.  Oh, and I would remind Cooke, she is always welcome to come and argue here.  Cooke is a big believer in the vilest forms of censorship.  Within limits, primarily mine and others privacy, I allow pretty much anyone to come here and make an ass of themselves.

For the (Hopefully) Last Time

Let me start by reiterating...

This blog does not target any particular individual. It is about issues that affect those born with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, also known as classic or true transsexualism. What I write about is determined by what is being said on other blogs, especially those that are run by frightened activists who can't stand to be disagreed with in their comment sections. In fact, one of the principal reasons I started it was because I saw so many who disagree with the "transgender party line" being kicked off of blogs for daring to speak the truth.

Now, one of the worst offenders in this regard happens to be Suzan Cooke. For example, yesterday, Cooke removed a post that took her to task for the same thing that I had written about. And that was the incredibly, unbelievabe statement that stated that people who are transgender are intersex. Now, Cooke's remark is exactly the sort of thing I write about.

In a post where Cooke whines about my writing about her remarks, she doesn't focus on the real issue (her ridiculous remark) but instead goes ballistic because I pointed out that she hates God. I stand by what I said. Cooke is a classic example of an angry atheist....someone who is mad at God and who strikes out at Him in what they believe is the worst possible way, by ceasing to believe in Him. I guess they think that will show Him.

Cooke offers up something Cooke calls the Epicurean Dilemma:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

This is a rather poetic version of what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil. It is supposed to leave Christians dumbfounded and confused. It is meant to be unanswerable. In truth, the answer is very simple. God cannot remove evil from the world without removing free will. And if God removed free will, then love could not exist, because love requires a free will. And a world without love would be the greatest evil of all.

The great Christian author, C.S. Lewis said this about the matter:

We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.

Now, I honestly cannot conceive of Cooke, remotely being willing to give up free will. So, Cooke, like the rest of us, is stuck with a world in which evil exists. In fact, it is that very free will that allows Cooke to not believe in the God that grants it to her.

Oh, and ironically, if Cooke had not launched this latest diatribe, I would have, as planned, written about another of Cooke's fellow transgender activists. I will save that one for tomorrow, unless something more interesting comes along.