|
? Because you think of sex and desires as an evil, shameful thing, that must mean that everyone else that disagrees is lying to themselves? Lol.
I don't know whether your falsification of my statement is unprincipled punditry, or an inability to read above a basic threshold of nuance. My only other piece of friendly advice would be to re-think your concept of open-mindedness. Now, there are two kinds of self-defeating statements one can make which are really non-statements.
One is yours: "Just because you think X doesn't mean you're right." What you are ultimately arguing is not that my thoughts are wrong, but that it's wrong for me to have thoughts at all.
The other is koreasilver's: "This person is a conservative Christian (I am not, but koreasilver's sociological determinism persuades him otherwise, so let's go with his argument,) he cannot but think X." His ultimate argument is: to make a truly valid argument, you are not allowed to be anything.
Try to avoid those kinds of intellectual dead ends here, if you would be so kind.
|
There's something amusing about how a person that would so proudly and confidently (with no proof or justification) proclaim that no normal person would ever be proud of their sexuality would then complain about an observer throwing a polemic statement at them (sorry, but you are a Catholic and you certainly do not have liberal tendencies).
I'm not even trying to argue with you because I really have no interest in spending time arguing with the local Grand Inquisitor.
|
My dear koreasilver, you really do reach for those ironies. To be sure there's plenty of irony to be found in my very short post, and I will even helpfully point some out, to aid your efforts:
You might have mocked, for instance, the absolute hilarity of someone who says:
What you are ultimately arguing is not that my thoughts are wrong, but that it's wrong for me to have thoughts at all.
would also say:
Try to avoid those kinds of intellectual dead ends here
As, you know, the only way to arrive at any conclusion would be to walk into an intellectual dead end. Oh, the awful hypocrisy of that dastardly Moltke!
But then the real question is, why bother? Why should I have to debate against myself in a thread where you are supposed supply half the labour?
Now, let's look at why your poetry is fails to rhyme:
There's something amusing about how a person that would so proudly and confidently (with no proof or justification) proclaim that no normal person would ever be proud of their sexuality would then complain about an observer throwing a polemic statement at them
Now, admittedly, half of my reply did complain of a sort of polemical behaviour. The latter half dealt with the vacuity of all species of subjectivist fundamentalism, and was anyhow not a complaint.
My complaint was directed either against limited literacy (which I rather suspect to be the case), or against "unprincipled punditry" (which I less suspected to be the case,) but say that I implied the latter charge. You will notice that what I am complaining about is not punditry, but its lack of principle. Read: deliberate falsification of another person's statements. Representing what you know to be false to be true.
Now, as far as I took my statements on normal people, I took those to be prima facie, which may be challenged as being insufficiently persuasive. Nonetheless, you already gave me the credit of having said, rightly or wrongly, what I actually believed to be the truth (conservative Catholicism, and all that.) It might be fallacious, but certainly not unprincipled.
Really, if you must point out my funnies, try to review the consistency of your own tropes. I don't want to have to help out again.
P.S. As for my Catholicism, what can I say? I was under the impression that there were strict and generally accepted criteria as to who was a Catholic , but apparently a Catholic is like a siamese twin, so conspicuous that you can't mistake them from across the street. Don't worry, I have the same prejudice about Russians, but I somehow suspect that I operate on a sounder science.
|
But you know, koreasilver, for someone as proof-obsessed as you are, you should admire my instant eye for syllogism and inconsistency. But let's not try to refute someone by pointing out contradiction, it's rather dry and humourless.
There's really only one way to argue here, and that is to constantly make bold and unprovable declarations which tickle your audience's poetic intuitions. Don't blame me for doing the only thing that gets you ahead in life.
|
3861 Posts
Can you guys take it to PMs please? I don't want this thread to be closed because of you guys.
|
If this was taken to PMs moltke would be PM'ing himself.
|
It's late and I like to chat before I go to bed.
|
I like to talk to myself too, but in the privacy of my own mind.
Lets be reasonable here.
|
On March 20 2011 15:29 koreasilver wrote:
I like to talk to myself too, but in the privacy of my own mind.
Lets be reasonable here.
Be honest here. You like to play the part of the chorus, that scoundrel who enjoys dominating the prologue and the epilogue of a play, teaching us its significance, having the last word. You despise dialogue.
I can only only recommend studying Hamlet. It's the richer role.
|
I'm really not narcissistic enough to enjoy talking to myself out loud all the time or equate my ramblings with Shakespearean soliloquies and think I have an audience that will be moved by my thoughts. Just because I have no desire to argue with you doesn't mean that I despise dialogue. The world isn't you.
|
On March 20 2011 15:57 koreasilver wrote:
I'm really not narcissistic enough to enjoy talking to myself out loud all the time or equate my ramblings with Shakespearean soliloquies and think I have an audience that will be moved by my thoughts. Just because I have no desire to argue with you doesn't mean that I despise dialogue. The world isn't you.
Nor am I, I'm a rather cathartic poster myself, which is something more than posting to get the latest sneer off your chest.
I still think you could be improved by some narcissism. Your statements are so minimalist and impotent, that they betray a fear of being ridiculous more than an easy ability to unload your mind, and anyone unwilling to risk ridicule consciously or unconsciously despises dialogue, I am sorry to say.
Don't stop at telling us that my story is bad. Tell us a better story. Don't stop at telling us what the world isn't, and tell us what the world is. Don't tell me what your narcissism falls short of. Tell us where it reaches. Or are you really of that conviction that you are the one objective being who is not permitted to be anything, that he may pass perfect judgement on the rest of us? Are we really dealing in vain with a non-person?
Come now, we've already established that any charlatan can be as objective, as logical, as reasonable as you, while having plenty of ridiculous things to say. It's an art you don't have to make any sacrifices for.
And I'm not only rambling here for my personal enjoyment, mind. You're persistently the thorn that enjoys poking at my neck when I stick it out, and withdraws into its bud when I try to draw you out. You can try to be a good sport at least.
|
no offense but i would like to spread a word
being gay isnt something u should be proud about. and it isnt something u should frown upon.
because u guys hold such big events, u people just persecute agenst urself. i mean, straights" dont act out on this because inside we are freaked out by u guys. in society, if one person is different from the reft of the group, then they are persecuted.
THATS IT THATS LIFE! and when u people hold events like this, its like making something bad to worse. i.e. a kid calls u a jew and u arnt one, the immediant responce is wut they will base u upon. like if u said "NO IM NOT! I BELIEVE IN GOD! the bully will take away from this saying "this angers the kid so ill do it more. if u responce, "lol nice one", then the bully will just leave that comment alone. its just how society works.
their is also no gay gene in the human body becasue, scientists would have found them by now. it is a state of mind. meaning U CHOOSE TO BE GAY IT IS NOT A GENE how can i prove this? well, more than 20 years ago, no one was gay. it just wasnt their. but now in this decade, science tells us that people are just changing their minds ABout their sexual preferences. im not meaning any offence but i no i will be persucuted for this. but i really dont care cause i will never come back to this thread again.
U must understand that humanity isnt ready for this. it is like Books in Farenhight 451 or fire man 451 humanity just isnt ready. maybe cause of outside influences i.e. parents, ESCPICALY PEARS, music, media. wutever
it is kinda like religion. its been 2 thousand years and we still all dont believe in one god or wutever.
it might never be worked out...
|
On March 20 2011 10:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Yet another parade of hedonism and bad manners posing as a positive ideal. I should not be one to criticize, as I have been an International Student for several years past, a category of people not much more progressed in moral sanitation than gay paraders.
The purpose of gay pride is not to celebrate sexuality, but the freedom and equality of sexuality.
Of course every person today is silently conscious about the social benefits of membership to a purportedly persecuted minority, a status which amounts to knee-jerk sympathy and acclamation among all respectable society. What is so peculiar about gay pride is that its very medium, in substance not much more than a generic variation of your common nauseating platitudes about equality and tolerance, is badly suited to the category.
What's respectable is subjective and we already know where you stand on that topic... speaking of which, honest question that I've always been curious about: would you consider your ideal partner to be fortunate or unfortunate?
No normal person is proud of his sexuality. This is so whether he is an immaculate virgin, or a foot-sniffing pedophile, and for obvious reasons. Sex as a mere compulsive appetite is lonely, humiliating and dull. It is only through the sense of shame we feel about it that it has any constructive emotional purpose. That purpose is the potential of intimacy by the mutual exchange of vulnerability between two people, and any public campaign which purports to celebrate any kind of sexuality is not only false but degrading. People who propagate such slogans I will grant usually believe what they are saying, but they don't know what they are saying.
No normal person is proud of their sexuality for the same reasons that they are not proud of having two ears or ten fingers. However, they are not ashamed of their sexuality like you purport, either. And intimacy is not facilitated through our shame of being sexual...it is facilitated through our biological need to have some security in knowing our partners are somewhat monogamous, sexually and emotionally. Whereas more polygamous ape species will tend to have sex out in the open with others watching, humans are less so and gain comfort in knowing (at least for males) that the child they will potentially sire is theirs and that their partner will be there for this child. There is a biological basis to our sexual behaviour (which I believe trumps any nonscientific thought on the subject).
As abhorrent as "Black", "Asian" or "Feminist" pride is, at least in each case, you can at least build a positive case for each of these movements. There are unquestionably certain things that black people can do better than whites, or women can do better than men. What staple of civilization can be particularly attributed to homosexuals, I shall leave the better-informed to determine.
That's actually a pretty racist and poor statement. These movements are not to celebrate what each group can bring to the table, but that they can sit at the table to begin with. Considering how similar we are as a species (probably attributable to having derived from a population of under 1000 individuals in Africa before our migration) and that sexuality really is a biological frame of mind, this point of equality based on physical/mental attributes is a pointless one to make.
Behind every honest cause, there are a thousand opportunists. Behind every dishonest cause also. Would jarrydesque have fought for the cause of "gay pride" in a society in which such sentiments would have brought odium, infamy and ostracism upon himself? Of course not. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his courage equals his posture. In such an environment, he would at best assume the guise of an old-fashioned liberal; fighting for the idea that it's no man's business to mind his neighbour's.
In an intellectually challenging environment, he would actually be obliged to have well-considered arguments.
This argument is actually pretty useless. Whether or not someone fights for a cause in light of all the negative repercussions they may face has nothing to do with why a cause should be fought for in the first place. And I'd imagine that the percentage of people willing to stand up for their rights is very similar in any reasonable group construct.
|
On March 20 2011 16:39 syorrm wrote:
their is also no gay gene in the human body becasue, scientists would have found them by now. it is a state of mind. meaning U CHOOSE TO BE GAY IT IS NOT A GENE how can i prove this? well, more than 20 years ago, no one was gay. it just wasnt their. but now in this decade, science tells us that people are just changing their minds ABout their sexual preferences. im not meaning any offence but i no i will be persucuted for this. but i really dont care cause i will never come back to this thread again.
I wish i could figure out how people like you think like this. Its mind boggling!
|
On March 20 2011 16:39 syorrm wrote:
no offense but i would like to spread a word
being gay isnt something u should be proud about. and it isnt something u should frown upon.
because u guys hold such big events, u people just persecute agenst urself. i mean, straights" dont act out on this because inside we are freaked out by u guys. in society, if one person is different from the reft of the group, then they are persecuted.
THATS IT THATS LIFE! and when u people hold events like this, its like making something bad to worse. i.e. a kid calls u a jew and u arnt one, the immediant responce is wut they will base u upon. like if u said "NO IM NOT! I BELIEVE IN GOD! the bully will take away from this saying "this angers the kid so ill do it more. if u responce, "lol nice one", then the bully will just leave that comment alone. its just how society works.
their is also no gay gene in the human body becasue, scientists would have found them by now. it is a state of mind. meaning U CHOOSE TO BE GAY IT IS NOT A GENE how can i prove this? well, more than 20 years ago, no one was gay. it just wasnt their. but now in this decade, science tells us that people are just changing their minds ABout their sexual preferences. im not meaning any offence but i no i will be persucuted for this. but i really dont care cause i will never come back to this thread again.
U must understand that humanity isnt ready for this. it is like Books in Farenhight 451 or fire man 451 humanity just isnt ready. maybe cause of outside influences i.e. parents, ESCPICALY PEARS, music, media. wutever
it is kinda like religion. its been 2 thousand years and we still all dont believe in one god or wutever.
it might never be worked out...
Seeing as how you spelled peers as pears, I think it's probably time to go to bed little Timmy.
There has been no discovery of a gay gene for much the same reason as there has been no discovery of an intelligence gene. It's a complex inheritance pattern that will take time to be understood and detected. There is, however, more of a concordance for homosexuality in monozygotic twins than in dizygotic twins, and this in itself means that there are biological factors attributable to the trait.
edit: word choice
|
The purpose of gay pride is not to celebrate sexuality, but the freedom of sexual equality.
And what's freedom of sexual equality? I understand either concept by itself, but the two seem to inflict a nebulous strain on my mind. Anyway, people who are free should hardly waste their freedom to celebrate itself. It has all the effectiveness of using democracy to elect the people as our leader. As for celebrating sexual equality, I don't see how we should do that except through methods, as I insinuated, which are hedonistic and bad-mannered (to put it politely)
Freedom as I understand it consists in taking on the responsibility of self-government. It's a duty, not a party. That is the only thing I have to say against liberalism: a man who is a liberal is not necessary bad, but a man who is nothing but a liberal surely is.
What's respectable is subjective and we already know where you stand on that topic... speaking of which, honest question that I've always been curious about: would you consider your ideal partner to be fortunate or unfortunate?
By partner I assume you mean wife. Political correctness makes even honest questions confusing, you know. My wife would of course be fortunate, as I would never allow her to marry me otherwise.
No normal person is proud of their sexuality for the same reasons that they are not proud of having two ears or ten fingers. However, they are not ashamed of their sexuality like you purport. And intimacy is not facilitated through our shame of being sexual...it is facilitated through our biological need to have some security in knowing our partners are somewhat monogamous, sexually and emotionally. Whereas more polygamous ape species will tend to have sex out in the open with others watching, humans are less so and gain comfort in knowing (at least for males) that the child they will potentially sire is theirs and that their partner will be there for this child. There is a biological basis to our sexual behaviour (which I believe trumps any nonscientific thought on the subject).
Which is no explanation for homosexuality, foot fetish, pedophilia, necrophilia, bug chasing, gut flopping, quicksand fetish, or masochism. Reductionism may be logical, but it's hardly more scientific than theology. However I think the operative defense of my hypothesis will have to be the following assertion:
the potential of intimacy by the mutual exchange of vulnerability between two people
A phenomenon so anti-evolutionary that it eludes all sensible speculative attempts to connect the two. In normal civilized life, admiration of strength is superficial love. Admiration of the flaws and weaknesses of our partner is the basis of intimate love, so long as they are willing to share them with us.
That's actually a pretty racist and poor statement. These movements are not to celebrate what each group can bring to the table, but that they can sit at the table to begin with. Considering how similar we are as a species (probably attributable to having derived from a population of under 1000 individuals in Africa before our migration) and that sexuality really is a biological frame of mind, this point of equality based on physical/mental attributes is a pointless one to make.
Oh, let's not be crunching numbers. Humans DNA variation is approximately 0.1%. We share 98% DNA with Chimpanzees. Whatever degree of similarity we accept into our moral computations is as arbitrary as the IQ required to be pronounced a genius. But going with your table analogy, if we are not celebrating what each group can bring to the table, why are people gathered about the table to begin with? I must concur with Aristotle's postulation that that which defines a thing is the nature of his function. Functions may overlap as it does in infinite varieties in human beings: the function of a human is to reason, the function of a woman is motherhood, the function of cobblers is to make shoes, the function of Canadians is to serve as foils to Americans. The fact that we can all sit at a table indicates our sameness on one level, a level generally agreed to possess an inherent dignity and worth. However the variations below that level are vast, and cannot be spared from differentiation in treatment or judgement.
As I said earlier, sexuality as a mere appetite is dull, lonely and emotionally unsatisfactory. It may be a frame of mind, but it's a frame of mind to be overcome, not to be embraced.
This argument is actually pretty useless. Whether or not someone fights for a cause in light of all the negative repercussions they may face has nothing to do with why a cause should be fought for in the first place. And I'd imagine that that the percentage of people willing to stand up for their rights is very similar in any reasonable group construct.
Causes do not exist in the abstract, they are incarnated by people, and mutated through an individual's personal and moral qualities. The triumph of causes without uplifting the moral condition of man is not only useless but distracting, like a false idol which wastes our time and attention. In their sheer removal from a positive ideal of human life are the twin idols of freedom and equality. The problem is not that people should worship them, but that they place them too highly in our moral hierarchy. Morally, freedom and equality are rather neutral, in so far as they pertain to states rather than to actions. Would I fight for them? probably, to a certain and very limited extent. Do I think that they are real solutions to the problems of society? You know what I think.
|
little timmy?
say that to my face u fucking homo
User was banned for this post.
|
One of the purposes of Gay Pride is to celebrate peoples sexual orientation but more than that it is to send the message that it is okay to be different. I take issue with people who dislike Gay Pride or who find it pointless. In some countries it is illegal to be gay, in others gays are treated as second class citizens and denied rights, and in some they are even killed for being who they are. Gay Pride is a form of solidarity and in its own way a fight for equality and freedom. If you take issue with people celebrating their sexuality in an overt way, then I guess you're a prude and should stay home. If you take issue with gays (or anyone for that matter) fighting for their rights and showing support for their comrades around the world, then you are a bigot.
EDIT:
little timmy?
say that to my face u fucking homo
I normally don't take offence to the use of homo, gay, fag, etc. But you're clearly using it as a derogatory slur. Please stop.
|
I must correct everyone on a minor but relevant point. In no country is it illegal to be "gay." In some countries it is illegal to perform homosexual acts, sodomy if you will. Judging by our standards, Saudi Arabia is the most gay-friendly country on earth, where men hold hands in public without any embarrassment.
No law makes it illegal to be "who you are." It makes it illegal to perform certain acts salient to your character. Generally, the places where homosexuality is most harshly regarded, also take greatest offence at other forms of sexual licence, such as fornication or adultery. Usually those laws regulate and govern peoples with a great propensity for committing such acts. As they are, they serve the needs of various primitive societies which place a high premium on social cohesion. It's not admirable, but it's not a thing to be tsked away with a wag of the finger.
|
On March 20 2011 18:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +The purpose of gay pride is not to celebrate sexuality, but the freedom of sexual equality. And what's freedom of sexual equality? I understand either concept by itself, but the two seem to inflict a nebulous strain on my mind. Anyway, people who are free should hardly waste their freedom to celebrate itself. It has all the effectiveness of using democracy to elect the people as our leader. As for celebrating sexual equality, I don't see how we should do that except through methods, as I insinuated, which are hedonistic and bad-mannered (to put it politely) Freedom as I understand it consists in taking on the responsibility of self-government. It's a duty, not a party. That is the only thing I have to say against liberalism: a man who is a liberal is not necessary bad, but a man who is nothing but a liberal surely is.
I edited my post prior to your response. But to clarify: gay pride celebrates the equality and freedom of individuals despite their sexual orientation. What people do to celebrate is up to them and subject to opinion but by no means can it be categorized as right or wrong. Considering that the leader of a democracy is symbolic of the people, I think many things in life can be portrayed as cyclical.
Show nested quote +No normal person is proud of their sexuality for the same reasons that they are not proud of having two ears or ten fingers. However, they are not ashamed of their sexuality like you purport. And intimacy is not facilitated through our shame of being sexual...it is facilitated through our biological need to have some security in knowing our partners are somewhat monogamous, sexually and emotionally. Whereas more polygamous ape species will tend to have sex out in the open with others watching, humans are less so and gain comfort in knowing (at least for males) that the child they will potentially sire is theirs and that their partner will be there for this child. There is a biological basis to our sexual behaviour (which I believe trumps any nonscientific thought on the subject). Which is no explanation for homosexuality, foot fetish, pedophilia, necrophilia, bug chasing, gut flopping, quicksand fetish, or masochism. Reductionism may be logical, but it's hardly more scientific than theology.
There are biological explanations for all of the listed above, some stronger and more supported than others. Regardless, the science behind these occurrences have nothing to do with the science behind human intimacy and why it exists the way it does. And homosexuality is a sexual orientation while foot fetishes, pedophilia etc. are not. Let's no falsely lump them together.
However I think the operative defense of my hypothesis will have to be the following assertion: Show nested quote +the potential of intimacy by the mutual exchange of vulnerability between two people A phenomenon so anti-evolutionary that it eludes all sensible speculative attempts to connect the two. In normal civilized life, admiration of strength is superficial love. Admiration of the flaws and weaknesses of our partner is the basis of intimate love, so long as they are willing to share them with us.
This would be a valiant defense if it was scientifically supported, which it is not! Please do not use the word anti-evolutionary for some construct you've just created and are trying to prove. To say it is anti-evolutionary means that it goes against a scientific process, in which it does not because it is not scientific to begin with.
Show nested quote +That's actually a pretty racist and poor statement. These movements are not to celebrate what each group can bring to the table, but that they can sit at the table to begin with. Considering how similar we are as a species (probably attributable to having derived from a population of under 1000 individuals in Africa before our migration) and that sexuality really is a biological frame of mind, this point of equality based on physical/mental attributes is a pointless one to make. Oh, let's not be crunching numbers. Humans DNA variation is approximately 0.1%. We share 98% DNA with Chimpanzees. Whatever degree of similarity we accept into our moral computations is as arbitrary as the IQ required to be pronounced a genius. But going with your table analogy, if we are not celebrating what each group can bring to the table, why are people gathered about the table to begin with? I must concur with Aristotle's postulation that that which defines a thing is the nature of his function. Functions may overlap as it does in infinite varieties in human beings: the function of a human is to reason, the function of a woman is motherhood, the function of cobblers is to make shoes, the function of Canadians is to serve as foils to Americans. The fact that we can all sit at a table indicates our sameness on one level, a level generally agreed to possess an inherent dignity and worth. However the variations below that level are vast, and cannot be spared from differentiation in treatment or judgement. As I said earlier, sexuality as a mere appetite is dull, lonely and emotionally unsatisfactory. It may be a frame of mind, but it's a frame of mind to be overcome, not to be embraced.
If you don't want to crunch numbers, fine. But my point was to state that that 0.1% difference in DNA amongst humans is so small that a German can be more genetically related to a Kenyan than to another German. When you compare humans to chimpanzees, the same cannot be said because that 2% passes a not-so-arbitrary line that defines us as a species. The variations underneath our commonality is insignificant--we are gathered at the table because it's time to eat.
Show nested quote +This argument is actually pretty useless. Whether or not someone fights for a cause in light of all the negative repercussions they may face has nothing to do with why a cause should be fought for in the first place. And I'd imagine that that the percentage of people willing to stand up for their rights is very similar in any reasonable group construct. Causes do not exist in the abstract, they are incarnated by people, and mutated through an individual's personal and moral qualities. The triumph of causes without uplifting the moral condition of man is not only useless but distracting, like a false idol which wastes our time and attention. In their sheer removal from a positive ideal of human life are the twin idols of freedom and equality. The problem is not that people should worship them, but that they place them too highly in our moral hierarchy. Morally, freedom and equality are rather neutral, in so far as they pertain to states rather than to actions. Would I fight for them? probably, to a certain and very limited extent. Do I think that they are real solutions to the problems of society? You know what I think.
Freedom and equality should be valued lest our society spiral into a Darwinian one--something that would not be pleasant to witness. If we were to abolish freedom and equality, leaving a society of similar individuals, albeit subjectively superior with some imaginary criteria, their potential population fitness would still decrease. I think the causes introduced within Western society rest on appropriate and "good" personal and moral qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
