EPTGay Pride 2011 - Page 5
| Blogs > jarrydesque |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On March 20 2011 23:04 Boblion wrote: Moltke are you Nietzschean ? Also Masamune i'm not sure that Moltke is the one laced into ideals. I mean you are arguing that people are equal which is undoubtedly untrue. edit: oh okay you edited to "biologically equals" ( i assume you mean genetically ? ) which is something even more wrong. Just take a look at Usain Bolt. I said "practically", not 100% equal, but close enough. And are we really singling out Usain Bolt for being able to run insanely fast, when we can compare all the similarities he shares as to treat him as an equal? Even the act of defining the term equal is a construct in itself, but if we are to do so, I think it's best for society to use the fact that all humans are of the same species, and that our differences are insignificant compared to are similarities. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
The Greek example of switching sexual orientation suggests nothing because sexual orientation cannot be switched. First of all, I was referring to the Greek custom of using homosexual acts (the Greeks had no conception of homosexuality as a social category as such) as social rituals perpetrated among a certain and definite class, the practice of which was quite independent from biological "sexual orientation," except in so far as sexual orientation is considered to be manifested in its nature and not its acts. As for sexual orientation being immutable, it is clearly and false, as many individuals have experienced shifts in personal sexual orientations over time. It's a fairly well-known and documented phenomenon, so I wonder that you're not aware of it. And no, I'm not going on the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. This post of yours alone goes to show your ineptitude for the sciences and your extreme lack of understanding in it. But I would start with BBC documentaries (which I'm guessing you already did based on the latter portion of your post) if I were you. I particularly like the NOVA ones, but mainly for the theme song. Actually I do recall reading the BBC's article on cases of fruitfly homosexuality back when it was breaking news 3 years ago. The very notion that you conjure it to support your argument suggests that you didn't read the article, or wherever you divined the information from, very well. The study did not conclude that homosexuality in fruit flies was determined by biological provenance. I suggest you re-visit the articles on that particular topic. Cannibalism is also not as prevalent as homosexuality is in humans, and if you did commit that act with your wife, I would attribute that as being due to a pathological mental nature, which is can be accounted for biologically. Kind of biased, don't you think. There's as much evidence that sexual cannibalism as a sexual orientation as homosexuality, by your account. I suppose you only fight for the rights of those who appeal to your arbitrary definition of a minority. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
An individual is not intrinsically moral or immoral. These are constructs of society that we place on certain actions that are detrimental. So no, an individual is not morally responsible for his own behaviour, but a society is obligated in making sure that it is protected from certain individuals, and we can define that as being a moral obligation, when in actuality it is an inherent obligation to preserve our society. How can society have a moral obligation, if none of the individuals in it are capable of behaving morally? How will you appeal to each man in that society that he has certain obligations within it? Because if elude your confusing idea of no intrinsic morality, and come back to the concept of social duty as the basis for it, you may talk your way back into some sense. I haven't slept in over 24 hours, your train should have already crashed by now, but your good at creating pretty sentences. Nothing you have said is even worth actually addressing. I just felt that if the mods were not going to take you out of the thread, I would make an attempt. Yes, we all get bad tempered when we're tired. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Moltke are you Nietzschean ? I'd say I'm more Moltkean. Planning long campaigns from the outset and having an answer to every contingency. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On March 20 2011 23:20 MoltkeWarding wrote: First of all, I was referring to the Greek custom of using homosexual acts (the Greeks had no conception of homosexuality as a social category as such) as social rituals perpetrated among a certain and defnite class, the practice of which was quite independent from biological "sexual orientation," except in so far as sexual orientation is considered to be manifested in its nature and not its acts. As for sexual orientation being immutable, it is clearly and false, as many individuals have experienced shifts in personal sexual orientations over time. It's a fairly well-known and documented phenomenon, so I wonder that you're not aware of it. There is a difference between switching sexual orientations on a whim for the hell of it and being of a sexual orientation naturally. And no, I'm not going on the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. This post of yours alone goes to show your ineptitude for the sciences and your extreme lack of understanding in it. But I would start with BBC documentaries (which I'm guessing you already did based on the latter portion of your post) if I were you. I particularly like the NOVA ones, but mainly for the theme song. If you assume that I was referring to the fruitless gene, then you're proving my assumption that your knowledge of science is very limited.Actually I do recall reading the BBC's article on cases of fruitfly homosexuality back when it was breaking news 3 years ago. The very notion that you conjure it to support your argument suggests that you didn't read the article, or wherever you divined the information from, very well. The study did not conclude that homosexuality in fruit flies was determined by biological provenance. I suggest you re-visit the articles on that particular topic. Kind of biased, don't you think. There's as much evidence that sexual cannibalism as a sexual orientation as homosexuality, by your account. I suppose you only fight for the rights of those who appeal to your arbitrary definition of a minority. Yes, different species. When I said homosexuality is found in nature, I was talking about it evolving in other species, as well as humans. Your example of sexual cannibalism is not present in humans to a degree of even considering it a prevalent trait. Speaking of train wrecks, why don't you stop shitting up this thread already? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
There is a difference between switching sexual orientations and being of a sexual orientation. Yes. Switching sexual orientation means that you change from being of one sexual orientation to another. If you assume that I was referring to the fruitless gene, then you're proving my assumption that your knowledge of science is very limited. To be fair to me though, you were weren't very consistent in your references. All the same I'd encourage you to read the aforementioned study, as its conclusion suggest that you are far head of yourself in making the kinds connections between genetics and sexual behaviour that you are. Yes, different species. When I said homosexuality is found in nature, I was talking about it evolving in other species, as well as humans. Your example of sexual cannibalism is not present in humans to a degree of even considering it a prevalent trait. Nonsense. It's present, but in an absurdly small minority. As a member of sexual cannibalism I'm kind of offended that you're denying our existence. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 20 2011 23:41 Masamune wrote: You know, I realize that your ego may be irreparable after your visits to Germany and the subsequent rejection and inferiority you felt, but is trying to heal it over the internet really going to make a difference? No shame in being snubbed by them krauts, is there? Getting punked by a red-haired Japanese kid and his frog on the other hand.... | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
But now i have grown up and i can understand why i was wrong and the flaws in my argument. On March 20 2011 23:15 Masamune wrote: I said "practically", not 100% equal, but close enough. And are we really singling out Usain Bolt for being able to run insanely fast, when we can compare all the similarities he shares as to treat him as an equal? Even the act of defining the term equal is a construct in itself, but if we are to do so, I think it's best for society to use the fact that all humans are of the same species, and that our differences are insignificant compared to are similarities. Our differences are insignificant compared to our similarities but at the same time some people are "geniuses" or "champions" whereas the vast majority of people are... average. Seems weird uh ? You may argue for equality as an ideology if you want but you will find no justifications in genetics nor history since the variations between each individuals are too important. It is just a belief. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On March 21 2011 00:36 MoltkeWarding wrote: Boblion is just impressed by how quickly the French Revolution collapsed against the united monarchs of Europe under my leadership in NAPs. Now you are just teasing :p That's definitly not what i have learned from our conversation  | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
Just thought I'd share it. | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it. While I found this thread notably more enjoyable from your having entered it, I suspect that you and I are in the minority in this matter. We should throw a parade about it. | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera. Then you get to gay marriage. And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold. Nearly seventy percent of people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue. Why all the passion? It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else. There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about. First, lets discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. And gays do have such relationships! But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young. Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!' If you attend any gay event, such as a Pride festival or a PFLAG convention, you'll find this to be true. As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships. The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well. A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers. These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in 1989, when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now. So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it? Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different. Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to. Additionally, many people continue to believe that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex is a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians. Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are a minority themselves. Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change. Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like. How about Deuteronomy 25:5-10, for example: "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying 'I have no desire to marry her,' then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and declare 'This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.'" If the Bible is sacred and inviolate when it comes to the institution of marriage, then the above passage and all the other inconvenient ones require reverence too, do they not? If the Christian is going to say, well, that's old, quaint and should no longer be expected to apply, well, then, that's exactly the point! The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it. Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress. You see, this is why gays have to have pride. EDIT: Please ignore the irony of my location. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
The first issues from a strange inability to absorb or respond to anything I am actually saying, and a fondness for mass producing generic talking points aimed at the fundamentalist redneck market, where peddlers of postmodern thought may actually find a minor profit in introducing counterfeit items to an uncanny people. The second is that no one actually debates with any attempt at novelty. Let's look at my first sentence in this thread: Yet another parade of hedonism and bad manners posing as a positive ideal. And how do my partners here refute my assertion that most people who preach these positive ideals are phony? Why, by preaching those positive ideals. It's like reassuring the merchant who accused you of paying in counterfeit coin by giving him another one. It's merely confirming the original moral proposition that virtue lies not in what you believe, but in what you do. If I could purchase virtue at the expense of a few cliches, partying with friends, running around in outlandish costumes, and echoing pious slogans, I would volunteer to be the first saint and martyr of Gay Prideism. If I could win honour by inventing fictitious prejudices in others, by assembling crowds which shared my affinity for men and self-congratulation, by bravely congratulating my own affinities among them, I would be the first mal-pensant to crusade in the cause of spreading dissatisfaction. I would cleanse the people by feeding their addiction to self-pity, and unite them in damning the Moloch of institutionalized prejudice. I would be the prophet of a new moral commonwealth, built on the proposition that our inner sufferings are inflicted by nobody but other people. If I have to repeat all my positions, I'll take the trouble of doing them one sentence at a time. People seem to get confused with my verbal economy  | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
You should check this site out then, it begs to differ: Dear Moltke Also, 11766 posts. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
While I found this thread notably more enjoyable from your having entered it, I suspect that you and I are in the minority in this matter. We should throw a parade about it. Well, it's unfortunate that I couldn't bring greater happiness to a greater number of people, but the people with whom I'm debating are categorical idealists. They take their ideas with deadly seriousness. Hence their relative normality when talking about real things like TV shows or pop music, but a complete inability to have fun while talking about their ideas.  | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 21 2011 12:12 Murderotica wrote: MoltkeWarding You should check this site out then, it begs to differ: Dear Moltke Also, 101766 posts. Well done.  To be fair to my own instincts, I did accuse you of peddling generic arguments with no relation to what I was saying. I just took you for another Masamune. | ||
| ||
