Gay Pride 2011

On March 07 2011 07:43 intrigue wrote:
whoa thats a cool tl logo

gonna suggest a new color scheme to naz for the site

On March 07 2011 07:44 sc4k wrote:
Awesome dude, great post, nice to see TL represented in such a colourful way. Wonder when those savages in Uganda will start accepting it.

PS 'dat cleavage' in 6th photo from bottom, girl on the right is packing military grade bazoongas!

On March 07 2011 11:19 Kerotan wrote:
I love this blog so much, but you know the first thing I noticed was how much sky there is South Africa, and its so blue! and do you seriously not have a single cloud in the whole of the country?

In all seriousness, I love your TL pony banner, your pictures are lovely and this is fine example of how to post good blogs.

-edit post 1111!

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.

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.

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.

On March 20 2011 10:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:
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.

? 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.

What you are ultimately arguing is not that my thoughts are wrong, but that it's wrong for me to have thoughts at all.

Try to avoid those kinds of intellectual dead ends here

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

The purpose of gay pride is not to celebrate sexuality, but the freedom of sexual equality.

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 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).

the potential of intimacy by the mutual exchange of vulnerability between two people

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.

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.

little timmy?

say that to my face u fucking homo

On March 20 2011 18:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:


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.

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:



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.

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.

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.

On March 20 2011 19:34 MoltkeWarding wrote:
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 19:42 Kickstart wrote:
Molkte you are dancing around the subject just like so many of the conservatives here in the states that I despise. You say that it isn't illegal to be gay, only to perform homosexual acts. That's just being silly and sidestepping the point.All you are saying is "its okay to be homosexual but not to act on your homosexuality", surely you see the contradiction there.

On March 20 2011 20:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Not at all. Both laws and morality address acts and not states, as I argued to Masamune. By turning it into a debate about who you are and not what you do, it is you and everyone else who posits the position who is really distorting the debate. If the two are equivalent, or if I by distinguishing the two am sidestepping, then you ought to have no objection to my statement revising the concepts as such. However, you object to the restatement, and here is why:

By emphasizing the who a person is, and avoiding what he chooses to do, you dodge both morality, and all facets of law other than the upper abstract layer of positive rights. Now, if I attack gay pride on any level, your self-blindsighting will always redirect the argument to your monofixation on positive rights. Truth to be told, I am indifferent as to what positive rights homosexual claim or collect in my country. I don't support them, but I would not waste a single breath against them.

I would not want the gay priders to waste any more of their mental energies fighting the persecution complex. Once you get past the notion that there are a group of hostile ideologues out to persecute you, maybe you will return to normal concerns of cultivating good manners and deciding what positive role you can contribute to your community. Vain hope, I know.

On March 20 2011 21:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Sigh, if you want to employ scientific illustration, I'd advise you not to impose speculation as science. There is no scientific consensus on the causes of homosexuality, and not even a respectable argument that the genetic providence of homosexuality is so determinate as to predict not only his dispositions, but his actions.

You see, I am typing this late at night because I am genetically predisposed to argue against you on this very issue. I'm also genetically predisposed, I suppose, to asexuality, Catholic conservatism, and imitating the polemic of certain extreme Right-wing American authorities. I am genetically disposed to be a bigot. Kickstart is genetically disposed to hate my bigotry. You're genetically disposed to believe in genetic disposition.

All of which is very morbid. If I am predisposed to homosexuality, it seems odd to celebrate its flourishing, unless I were genetically predisposed to that as well.

There's nothing you can say to people who argue like that, as long as they are willing to carry on the charade of absurdity. Masamune is one of those men of the machine men for whom, as Simone Weil said 70 years ago, "it is the thing that thinks, and man is reduced to a thing."

On March 20 2011 21:33 Entropic wrote:
Well at least the thread reached the 3rd or 4th page before utterly going to the gutter.

I think he is entitled to his opinion, but it should have been the OP of a new thread, not the tarnishing of Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:12:11
this one.

On March 20 2011 22:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:
My dear Masamune, there is a measure of modesty and proportion which are simply matters of decorum. The lack of proportion is in this:

To make your point that biology negates ethics, you must show not only that free will is negated in a person's sexual orientation, but in his sexual behaviour. The latter is phenomenologically untrue, and every ordinary person I should hope including yourself, should be able to bear testimony to that.

As for the former, I am heavily inclined more toward the argument of moral machinery. Ancient Greek practices of pederasty and adult homosexuality was widespread among certain classes as an institutionalized social ritual. The Greeks who indulged in such practices had no conception of sexual orientation as we have today.

I am quite willing to accept the theory of a soft genetic disposition in sexual provenance, but the wax and wane of homosexuality as a phenomenon across different cultures, and the phenomenon of changing sexual orientation, suggest that it is no more than a soft and potentially mutable influence.

Whatever the case may be, it falls far short of your speculative genetic determinism.

But let's see how far you are willing to take the charade: to what extent, in your opinion, is an individual morally responsible for his own behaviour?



Eh? At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it.

On March 20 2011 22:26 Masamune wrote:

Whether the Greeks indulged in homosexual practices has nothing to do with it's biological basis. You know nothing of science to even address the merits of homosexuality being biologically rooted. For it to a be a mutable influence, it wouldn't exist at even half the prevalency it does today. Much the same way eusocial insects sacrifice their own direct reproductive success for the indirect success of their kin, homosexuality probably evolved in humans. And it isn't a trait confined to only to us, over 1500 species are known to commit homosexual behaviours.

An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to be immoral, and rightfully so.

An individual really isn't morally responsible for his own behaviour. It is society that draws the line of what is morally acceptable and those that happen to cross it, at the risk of society, are considered to Last edit: 2011-03-20 22:29:00
be immoral, and rightfully so.

On March 20 2011 22:45 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Well, Masamune, of course it does. Remember the thing to be proven is that not only is biology a factor, but it is the only factor which excludes all other elements from behaviour, including volition. The Greek example suggests social influences on sexual practice. The phenomenon of switching sexual orientation suggests the influence of personal disposition.

By quoting your scientific authority, I hope you're not going to go by the basis of BBC archives on insect homosexuality. You're not making a good case for human dignity here. Suppose I were to make the case for sexual cannibalism as a sexual orientation. I am going to go to the supreme court to argue my case thus:

Sexual cannibalism is a phenomenon prescribed by genetic coding, passed down from a genetic instinct to provide nutrition for the female partner. It has demonstrably evolved in certain insects, quite independently of humans, such as in certain praying mantuses and specimen of spiders. As a trait of my genetic provenance, I cannot be held morally responsible if I consume my mate after copulation.

Plausible, no? Or maybe I just really hated my wife. Who knows.

On March 20 2011 22:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:


So, an individual cannot be immoral, but a society can judge him to be immoral. Am I right on that?

I miss the old says, when people who debated could actually see the train wreck coming in front of their noses.

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.

The Greek example of switching sexual orientation suggests nothing because sexual orientation cannot be switched.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moltke are you Nietzschean ?

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.

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.

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.

There is a difference between switching sexual orientations and being of a sexual orientation.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

At the risk of self-importance, there was nothing in this thread before I came along and ruined it.

Yet another parade of hedonism and bad manners posing as a positive ideal.

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.

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.

On March 21 2011 12:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:


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.

On March 21 2011 12:20 MoltkeWarding wrote:


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.

If by "peddling generic arguments" you mean arguments with an empirical approach, and by "relation to what I was saying" as your well crafted straw man arguments, then you are correct.

I don't know why I continue to bother, however. When dealing with an apparent narcissist harbouring great feelings of inadequacy

On March 21 2011 06:38 Mora wrote:
Moltke, you are undoubtedly my favourite read on Teamliquid.net.

Just thought I'd share it.