|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Uschi said:
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Homosexuality doesn't have to be the norm. I'm just saying that it's natural. If 'GOD" didn't want gays and homosexuality goes against "GOD's" will, howcome animals are homosexual?
That's like saying that, "If God didn't want us to eat other humans, or our own children for that matter, he wouldn't have engineered those instincts into lesser sentient lifeforms."
This all around line of argument makes me wonder exactly how you're defining "natural".
Natural as 'occuring in nature without outside influance.' Yes canibalism fits under this label. People do practice canibalism and there is evidance which led researchers to believe it is possible that humans all, at one time, have practiced canibalism. This does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with consumption of human meat. It is my preferance to never partake in the practice because of respect for the other humans around me and the fact that it turns my stomach to think of eating people, but that does not mean there is anything wrong or unnatural about eating any animal meat, even human. In some cultures the consumption of the dead is part of their burial rights and seen as a way to keep the dead loved ones alive in spirit. Fun Fact: Human meat is the healthiest thing for a human to eat since it has all the right nutrients.*
*information claimed in this paragraph is what I got from watching the canibalism special on the History Channel
Quote:
One could reason that because we created plutonium or enrichened U-235 that-that automatically makes their existence a natural occurence because we, the makers of the substance, came from nature, but that's not about to bypass the fact that we made it and it didn't come straight from the earth as all natural resources do. More to point (and perspective), one could say that a man who has an abnormal brain structure, which makes him a violent killer, is a natural occurence and he should be allowed to do what he's predisposed to do. Could you accurately title such things as "natural"? Wouldn't it be, perhaps "anamolous". Your thesis is built upon an oxymoron; life is built to survive and prosper, not to destory itself and take others with it unnecessarily.
By my definition above, homicidal maniacs are natural occurances, yes. Natural design has nothing to do with moral preferances.
Quote:
Quote:
Penguins mate for life. There didn't have to be no female penguins. Maybe there weren't as many female penguins as male so they just paired up anyhow. It doesn't matter.
Which would suggest that they want sexual release, but that does not, on its own, suggest that homosexuality is natural.
I'm just leaving this in to say that, again, by the definition of natural being 'as occuring in nature without outside influance,' homosexuality is by definition a natural act -as proved by our little penguins. If you think there are still moral qualms, that's fine. I'm just establishing, to this point, that homosexuality is a natural occurance.
Quote:
Quote:
As for one gender on the planet, we all started out as asexual multi-celled organisms reproducing through cloning ourselves and getting an occasional mutation when things didn't go perfect (as does happen). I see no reason to demand heterosexual relations for a species to survive on a planet. Even if we weren't here, some of the other lower-based life forms still would be.
Evolution = Not Proven. Therefore, it is not a proper example to base your arguments on.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
...
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts. "
Please give me a real argument against asexual reproduction. There are living creatures (in the oceans mostly) that reproduce asexually. Life can and does exist without genders.
Here I would also like to bring up those frogs referanced in Jurrassic Park. There, IIRC, really are certain types of amphibians and fish which can change their genders based on environmental stimuli (including population statistics within the species). Are these animals abominations before "God?" Should we wipe them off the earth in a massive holucaust? Aren't they technically homosexual since they're transgender? Or is that kind of natural sexual relation ok with you?
Quote:
Quote:
In the Middle Ages nine of ten children would die of disease or something before reaching puberty. It was valuable for the church to teach 'be fruitful and multiply' when most of the people croaked. It was basic instinct to pop out whatever you could. In present time and in first world countries we don't have the same problems.
The main argument was never regarding the Church.
And where exactly do you get this from?
I get the statistics from the two college-level courses I have taken regarding Europe in the Middle Ages. People would reproduce and most (if not all) of their children would die. My main argument here is also not regarding the church. It is regarding society's norms. In the Middle Ages for Western Culture, most of Europe was dominated by the Christian belief system. People of learning were people who could read and the only thing to read were religous texts. All the educated people were monks (all is used loosly, but not too much so). The people in charge of large groups of people ultimately answered to the Pope (since the ultimate rulers got their ques from the Pope's decisions and opinions). Society was dominated by Christianity, thus is had an influance on the people and society of the times. That is why the church is important in this particular aspect of my arguments (although the arguments don't really NEED to referance the church so we can erase the sentance regarding the church above).
Quote:
Quote:
There is no need to restrict pleasurable activities to merely their primary function. People can afford to use contraception or alternative routs of sexual stimulation, including sodomy.
Reminder: Never involved the Church before you mentioned it.
This is contradictory to your previous argument. If its no longer profitable for the Church to encourage multiplication cuz' people aren't dying as voluminously, why do they have a firm standpoint against abortion?
#1 - How is this a contradiction? People have grown out of the need for sex to be limited to it's primary function. End of story here.
#2 - The church has nothing to do with anything I'm trying to get across here.
Quote:
Also, I'd like to point out, once again, whilst one can attain pleasure through sodomy, one can also partake of pleasure from lacerating one's self. Does that make it a viable "alternative route" towards sexual stimulation?
Until cigarettes and tattoos and body piercings are made illegal, yes self-mutilation is a viable "alternative rout" for anything. So long as a person's actions do not step on another person's rights, they have the freedom to partake in them.
Quote:
Sodomy is not a harmless act. And either form of sexual stimulation (sodomy/lacerating) involves pre-requisite learned behavior for successful stimuli.
Pre-req learned behavior? What the fuck are you trying to say with that?
Sodomy is not a harmless act? So what? Name one thing that doesn't have direct or potential harm in it? If you don't want to be harmed by the act of sodomy then nobody's forcing you to do it (and if they do it is an act punishable by US Law, among others). If someone wants to take the risk of skateboarding, who are we to stop them? If someone wants to ride a tricycle, nobody screams 'UNNATURAL!' or "GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE WHEELS!' If an adult picks their nose they run the risk of it bleeding. If a person uses q-tips to clean earwax from their ears it has proven ill effects on the person's hearing, but the cops aren't arresting people for succombing to q-tip's temptation. Sodomy really isn't any different. It's not a problem to have vaginal sex, it's not a problem to have anal sex.
Quote:
Quote:
Again looking at animal behaviors, there is a class of Ape that is heavy on the sex-for-pleasure attitude. I believe it's the Bonobous or something like that. The primates have been observed in captivaty and in the wild engaging in non-reproductory sexual acts with each other, supposibly merely for the pleasure they recieve doing it.
Is this supposed to illustrate animals as being designed to be deviant, and therefore, a non-cooperative standard for the Church and Christianity altogether? If so, you've completely overlooked the fact that Christianity doesn't feel that animals are on the same level as humans--They don't even have souls. Their demonstration of their predisposition to the baser instincts and incapability to reason as higher sentient lifeforms proves nothing.
You must have forgotton that I don't believe in 'god' or any of that. I will not use faith as a basis for my arguments.
Animals are not designed to be deviant. Animals are animals. I'm just showing an example, like the penguins, of other living creatures (this time more genetically similar to ourselves) engaging in sex for fuck's sake, not to make babies. It doesn't matter that animals don't have souls according to you. They are, as you mentioned, more predisposed to the baser instincts. Since it is a base instinct to reproduce it is interesting that a 'soulless creature' such as an ape might have survived when they like to have sex without creating babies.
Quote:
Quote:
My point is, homosexuality is not unnatural or something detrimental to society in any manner.
This is pulled from another board I posted at regarding the same subject since I already explained this ad nauseum there AND here. Since I've talked about it on Rob's more though, I just decided to use this quote:
The current regulatory commissions of society adhere to rules that dictate the safety of said society. Down to the last individual. That's a given. But this is usually taken for granted in light of what people want as opposed to what's needed by their shared community of citizens. The harvested idea that sodomy is a harmless action is an anti-utopian ideal--And as a society, Utopia is precisely what we strive for. To allow the typical homosexual process to be considered a harmless venture in the face of society is fallacious. Someone saying that homosexuals practicing sodomy is isolated within a minority and, therefore, should be tolerated is no different than someone who reasons that drug trafficking shouldn't be fought against since the effectiveness is below minimal and the cost isn't worth the fight. The subtext, while slightly different, interacts adequately well with homosexual statutes as an analogy: To tolerate hallucinogenic/acidic drugs and let the conception spread that their presence is a harmless societal constant would speed up the governmental entropy and make society crumble. Just as the homosexual civil rights movement hammered the government for their now attained civil unions, the notion that their form of intercourse 'isn't something to worry about' would eventually, on a long enough timeline, cause a mass-spread of positive opinions regarding it. World-wide consideration for casual sodomy as a neutral-good thing would cause a severe negative impact on its recesses. Society dictates that we put people who are mentally imbalanced in the psyche-ward because their actions are a danger to themselves and other people around them. Since homosexuals feel a need to consummate their relationship, they unnaturally and very abrasively abuse their colon. They "feel the need to" have sex in an unorthodox and dangerous element of predisposition. Considering there's correlating feelings/factors between them and sado-masochists, that creates a definite concern as to whether or not we're adhering to ad hominem from an uncredible source. Moreover, this exemplification of a type of civil domino effect could be related to the dangers of the ever-constantly evolving popular culture that has been sewing seeds within politics for the past century. If these opinions caused by kindred forces that only dictate a voluminous voice, and not necessarily a benign one, continue to grow without proper analysis/regulation, their presence could permanently imprint themselves as crucial factors for the domineering political hierarchies of modern-day structural archetypes associated with business and government. No matter what the reality of their presence may be, they'll be viewed as a possible fore-thought that deserves its place in law. This is exactly how NAMBLA was able to get in its own two cents with a degree of success.
Wow. That's what's called a 'slippery slope' argument. Those arguments are invalid and mostly brought up by zealots jumping to a great amount of conclusions in a short time-frame. The association with NAMBLA at the end was similar to someone saying (without justifying how) someone is acting like Adolf Hitler.
Homosexuality will cause society to crumble and be destroyed? Really? Christianity killed Rome, not their homosexual practices (which made their warriors more ferocious to defend every one of their lives). Romans and Greeks and many many other societies lasted for LONG periods of time when sodomy was acceptable.
This seems to be the only thing I can find that isn't fluff in the above:
"Someone saying that homosexuals practicing sodomy is isolated within a minority and, therefore, should be tolerated is no different than someone who reasons that drug trafficking shouldn't be fought against since the effectiveness is below minimal and the cost isn't worth the fight. The subtext, while slightly different, interacts adequately well with homosexual statutes as an analogy: To tolerate hallucinogenic/acidic drugs and let the conception spread that their presence is a harmless societal constant would speed up the governmental entropy and make society crumble."
Sodomy is minority = drug trafficing is small and costly to fight
=== speed up governmental entropy therefore we fall into anti-utopian anarchy
Is that right? Give some evidance to support this claim. Show me how homosexuality is making the govenrment disintegrate. Show me how what homosexuals have done to gain rights as humans has done anything not comparable to what Womens Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement did for women and blacks.
One last thing: Pariah, since when do you give a flying fuck about other people's colon health so much as to demand they change their ways? What does it have to do with you? How are the big bad homosexuals out to get you and how have they made your life worse so that you find it necessary to wage a personal tirade against them collectively?
And I hope Batwoman replies to my reply to her since that's who I started this conversation with. I dislike arguing with Pariah. No offense, P.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Kaz said:
...
Familarity breeds contempt.
That doesn't seem to pertain to hetrosexuality 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
But I will admit, I don't agree with a lot of what the str8s have to say. There's really quite a bit of anti-gay sentiment on Rob's boards and it's very disquieting.
I've made my share of gay jokes. I thought it was funny because I was joking around. I'm honestly suprised at how people here might potentially mean that stuff.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
That doesn't seem to pertain to hetrosexuality
If it did, we'd all be self-loathing goth types.
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
Kaz said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
That doesn't seem to pertain to hetrosexuality
If it did, we'd all be self-loathing goth types.
Or jewish.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
What the bloody fuck!? Uschi, for fuck's sake, when you make a bloody argument, stay on motherfucking tangent for the love of fuckin' pete! Your post is filled to the fucking brim with straw mans and its agonizing trying to wade through it.
Quote:
Uschi said:
Natural as 'occuring in nature without outside influance.' Yes canibalism fits under this label. People do practice canibalism and there is evidance which led researchers to believe it is possible that humans all, at one time, have practiced canibalism. This does not mean that there is anything inherently wrong with consumption of human meat. It is my preferance to never partake in the practice because of respect for the other humans around me and the fact that it turns my stomach to think of eating people, but that does not mean there is anything wrong or unnatural about eating any animal meat, even human. In some cultures the consumption of the dead is part of their burial rights and seen as a way to keep the dead loved ones alive in spirit.
Yes, but you see, not only were you trying to contradict the idea that there is a God (and that he's of moral standards), you were also trying to contradict the idea that "natural" traits of this nature aren't anti-life. That's clearly flawed reasoning since baser organisms, your chosen exemplification, live mainly to survive. Pleasure comes second.
Quote:
Fun Fact: Human meat is the healthiest thing for a human to eat since it has all the right nutrients.*
Fun Fact: If you eat the human cerebellum, you get Kuru.
Quote:
By my definition above, homicidal maniacs are natural occurances, yes. Natural design has nothing to do with moral preferances.
But the fact that you've been trying to use a more preferential standard you dub as "respect", as themed throughout your argument, contradicts you again. You were trying to reason animal homosexuality to cement your argument of, ' it’s natural and therefore should be accommodated' (accompanied the ulterior argument, 'Why would God do this if he existed'). Murder is a direct offense upon the recesses of natural life. Sodomy--In every sense and circumstance--Is just as direct even though its methods remain [dissimilar/less quantified (in individual sessions)].
Quote:
If you think there are still moral qualms, that's fine. I'm just establishing, to this point, that homosexuality is a natural occurance.
Since you, yourself, have revealed types of moral qualms, I find the overall intent of the statement as contradicting as your formers.
Quote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts."
Okay. Fine. They know evolution is fact, but they're not actually certain it's fact, but at the same time, to not say our uncertain notions are certainly fact would be "preposterous". Great.
This doesn't cancel out my argument, it merely repeats it and the adopts an apologetic tone with that link, which, by the way, offers nothing but hypothetical assumptions concerning evolution, no real "consistent and extensive evidence". It's pretty much the same tone that's been repeated over and over for the past 60 years.
Counter-Reference
Quote:
Please give me a real argument against asexual reproduction. There are living creatures (in the oceans mostly) that reproduce asexually. Life can and does exist without genders.
Yeah, there are, and that's lovely for them, but their ability to procreate is dissimilar to ours.
It's hard to tell what your proposed baselines for argument are. Are you trying to say that I should dispute the evolutionist placement of asexual stages within the hypothetical evolution chart (cuz' really, the relevance of your argument rests on your source's confirmability and "certainty") OR Do you want me to counter-argue your attempted contradiction of Christianity's version of Creation (although, in your argument, you mixed your atheistic and secular views in with Christianity when you tried to reason humans evolving from lower sentience whilst doctrine decrees that humans were created. So you fucked up there)?
Quote:
Are these animals abominations before "God?" Should we wipe them off the earth in a massive holucaust? Aren't they technically homosexual since they're transgender? Or is that kind of natural sexual relation ok with you?
Uh, huge problem with that (aside from your judgmental attitude implying that I’m a fanatic). Those sex organs are meant to work with their species' for propagation. With this line of reasoning originating from the basis that humans shouldn't deviate from the proper sexual posture, your argument is rendered invalid since humans have different mechanics.
Quote:
I get the statistics from the two college-level courses I have taken regarding Europe in the Middle Ages. People would reproduce and most (if not all) of their children would die. My main argument here is also not regarding the church. It is regarding society's norms. In the Middle Ages for Western Culture, most of Europe was dominated by the Christian belief system. People of learning were people who could read and the only thing to read were religous texts. All the educated people were monks (all is used loosly, but not too much so). The people in charge of large groups of people ultimately answered to the Pope (since the ultimate rulers got their ques from the Pope's decisions and opinions). Society was dominated by Christianity, thus is had an influance on the people and society of the times. That is why the church is important in this particular aspect of my arguments (although the arguments don't really NEED to referance the church so we can erase the sentance regarding the church above).
But, for some reason, you're getting the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" was the Vatican's motto, when really, it wasn't.
Quote:
#1 - How is this a contradiction? People have grown out of the need for sex to be limited to it's primary function. End of story here.
#2 - The church has nothing to do with anything I'm trying to get across here.
You very clearly argued that the Christian higher ups, way back when, were in a position to profit from a gregarious amount of endorsement for mass breeding at the time (whichever time that may be). The Church wasn't concerned with populating the world, even if that were the case, people would still retain the opportunity for the more deviant sexual acts. Quite simply, your convictions against the church, in this case, don't hold water.
Quote:
Until cigarettes and tattoos and body piercings are made illegal, yes self-mutilation is a viable "alternative rout" for anything. So long as a person's actions do not step on another person's rights, they have the freedom to partake in them.
Tattoos and body piercing do not measure up to the harmful potential of sodomy. Unless someone has an addiction or their piercing/tattoo job is done by an amateur, the effects of.....Uh, the more orthodox tattoos and/or piercing are more or less harmless.
Cigarettes, like forms of Vitamin C and Coca Cola, are a mild stimulant. All three can be abused, but moderate use, as encouraged, isn't bad for one's health. The same can't be said for sodomy.
Quote:
Pre-req learned behavior? What the fuck are you trying to say with that?
I said that the stimulation from either act is a learned process. One can take a pleasure from them, but its a case of trial and error. That's not the case with a penis and a vagina--And please don't lecture me on some people being better at sex than others or some shit. The vaginal nerves won't be missed upon penetration no matter how unskilled the guy or gal is.
Quote:
Sodomy is not a harmless act? So what? Name one thing that doesn't have direct or potential harm in it?
Uh, sorry, but you can't do that. Associating potential harm with direct harm doesn't work. A guy could potentially stub his toe whilst walking up unfamiliar stairs in the dark--And he does. By your implied standard, that would be a direct form of harm because he knew it might happen, but the problem with that is, he didn't want it to happen. "Direct", in this case, would imply full awareness of what you were going to do to yourself.
Quote:
If someone wants to take the risk of skateboarding, who are we to stop them? If someone wants to ride a tricycle, nobody screams 'UNNATURAL!' or "GOD DIDN'T INTEND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE WHEELS!' If an adult picks their nose they run the risk of it bleeding. If a person uses q-tips to clean earwax from their ears it has proven ill effects on the person's hearing, but the cops aren't arresting people for succombing to q-tip's temptation.
But no one has the intent to be hurt. There's a big difference.
Quote:
it's not a problem to have anal sex.
Yes. It is.
Quote:
You must have forgotton that I don't believe in 'god' or any of that. I will not use faith as a basis for my arguments.
I didn't. You were trying to use God's lesser sentient creations, animals, to contradict my, and my religion's belief system by illustrating their tendency to masturbate and release sexual energy in whatever way they can, so I merely argued the point whilst staying on the same field. You've merely repeated my argument just now, but with your spin on it.
Quote:
Since it is a base instinct to reproduce it is interesting that a 'soulless creature' such as an ape might have survived when they like to have sex without creating babies.
What the hell is this supposed to mean!? Just because it doesn't have a soul, that doesn't mean we think any less of it, as you imply. We don't feel it's at all bound by our morals due to its lower sentient status. It's not going to be judged when it dies.
Quote:
Wow. That's what's called a 'slippery slope' argument. Those arguments are invalid and mostly brought up by zealots jumping to a great amount of conclusions in a short time-frame. The association with NAMBLA at the end was similar to someone saying (without justifying how) someone is acting like Adolf Hitler.
You know, I never really thought you'd stoop to that--Never would I think you'd resort to a "zealot" knee-jerk.
There's nothing "slippery slope" about it. I realize that you don't like to think that homosexuals have a mental disorder on par with pedophiles, fetishists, serial killers, etc., but the possibility is so apparent, you'd be foolish to disregard it so quickly. With the given idea that homosexuals should have the right to have sex through sodomy 'cuz' they were born that way' being legal, NAMBLA is given its legal chance to step through a very non-technicality in the legal cracks. Their tone is natural attraction as well, and that gives them lee-way--Too fucking much to overlook. By all reasoning and logic, with that kind of bullet proof defense, anyone whose killed a person could have their indictment expunged simply because they say their minds have this urge that they were born with.
Hell! Texas is the best example of one of the beginnings for this snowball effect. I'm sure we're all aware of the arrested gay couple whose crime and defense was able to overturn the law. You may not want to agree with the effects of their sexual behavior, but this situation has some very apparent foreshadowing.
Quote:
Homosexuality will cause society to crumble and be destroyed? Really? Christianity killed Rome, not their homosexual practices (which made their warriors more ferocious to defend every one of their lives).
Are you trying to say that the Christians who were executed and tortured in Rome brought it on themselves? If so, fuck off.
Quote:
Romans and Greeks and many many other societies lasted for LONG periods of time when sodomy was acceptable.
"Long periods of time"? Couldn't they have lasted LONGER? I mean, what's a "long reign" in the face of the fact that their actions stagnated their ability to keep going. You do realize that in Rome, Greece, and Athens, there were numerous and growing cases of STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea(sp), and UTI yes? If war and corruption didn't get em', the sex would have.
Quote:
Sodomy is minority = drug trafficing is small and costly to fight === speed up governmental entropy therefore we fall into anti-utopian anarchy
That is a total redefinition of what I said. Thank you for being so misrepresentative.
I said that exercising those perceptions would lead to social imbalance. Drug trafficking is a serious problem with serious risks, but it's mostly the undesirables that feel the pinch, plus there's hardly any success to stopping it, so the view that its not worth fighting has been adopted. Sodomy is not an isolated or small practice that retains any sort of exclusivity to a certain group, it merely retains a majorital use among homosexuals--However, because homosexuals have been legally pampered, the perception that it's only a small group doing it the most and not much anyone else is following suit becomes the adopted view of compromise. To avoid a possibly perceived notion of discrimination (or, in the case of the left, it's a publicity/cash cow), the government hierarchy tolerates such practices. Assuming that the homosexual sentiment towards sodomy would be a growing opinion is a valid hypothesis. A growing fan-base for sodomy is a concept that holds inherent dangers: Raised likelihood of contracted diseases, a sexually ignorant percentage that proportionally accompanies every populace--A government's gotta look out for its inhabitants, I realize that you think, in the case of sodomy, that it's an inhibition of some freedoms, but your very much under-estimating the dangers that follow this so-called harmless behavior. With regular sex, you at least have the ability to not hurt yourself and much less chance of contracting a hygienical disease (Hepatitis, abrasion/rupture, UTI), let alone an STD.
Quote:
Is that right? Give some evidance to support this claim. Show me how homosexuality is making the govenrment disintegrate. Show me how what homosexuals have done to gain rights as humans has done anything not comparable to what Womens Liberation and the Civil Rights Movement did for women and blacks.
Like the Civil Rights Movement that helped women and black people, the homosexual movement is just as dead set on getting more and more rights then is allowed anyone else. So this argument doesn't make much sense to me. However, I've already gone over, to a great extent, the pleading for special rights is current and voluminous here.
I'll be as clear-cut as possible: The institution of legal marriage wasn't designed for homosexuals because it was an invention based on likelihood and convenience. Just because it's only straight people who can marry, that does not suggest an oppression of homosexual rights. It does, however, recite its proper function as a sexually orthodox system, which allows a family monetary lee-way for the sake of its branching growth. Marriage was designed to [support families/potential families]. Homosexuals cannot produce children and, therefore, are not included as likely candidates for marriage. While they can indeed adopt, which, in some cases, would require legal monetary support (depending on their financial history), hence they are indeed afforded stipends as needed. With that, they are also afforded civil unions, which give tax benefits to gay couples. Since they would likely not have financial requisites for family, it is seemingly wasteful to accommodate their legally united status. This is taking into mind that the couple could have manually filed all of their paperwork so as to have their joint finances and power of attorneys. What's more, I find there to be a serious security risk when it comes to [gay civil unions/gay marriage]: There's no actual way to confirm their homosexual status, everything would have to be taken at face value. Straight people could easily pose as gay couples and scam the government.
Quote:
One last thing: Pariah, since when do you give a flying fuck about other people's colon health so much as to demand they change their ways? What does it have to do with you?
I kinda already expressed that. I'm saying sodomy and its damaging effect on the body along with its increased risk for any sort of infection or possible new strain of STD is a concern to me. I'm sure we've all read up on the outbreaks around 30 years ago, and know what's going on in Africa and south-eastern China. These things have a way of snow-balling. Your assertion that the world can't and won't, on a long enough timeline, incorporate sodomy as a casual act is a rather ignorant one, I find.
Quote:
How are the big bad homosexuals out to get you and how have they made your life worse so that you find it necessary to wage a personal tirade against them collectively?
I've already made it clear that I'm not against "big bad homosexuals", but sodomy in general. The only reason I talk about them the most in reference to sodomy is because their populace seems the most predisposed to it. Their concentrated number and voice that it's 'not bad' is a flawed message that effects every societal crevice it saturates, and all of these new legal rights will just give way to more even worse developments than sodomy. And it hasn't made my life worse....Yet. I'm just being pre-emptive.
You see Uschi, the problem is you're being too damn literal. You hear me say society's gonna go belly up and you say 'it hasn't happened at all'. I've made it perfectly clear that we're on the presipice of a chain-reaction. Not an immediate and present doomsday, as you like to portray my arguments as prophesizing. I've also gone over the signs, but you didn't feel like actually addressing what I wrote in the other threads.
Quote:
And I hope Batwoman replies to my reply to her since that's who I started this conversation with. I dislike arguing with Pariah. No offense, P.
No offense taken, but I will ask, however, that when you make a gargantuan argumentative post--PLEASE!! PLEASE!! FOR THE LOVE OF YOUR NON-BELIEF IN GOD!! MAKE SURE YOU STAY ON TANGENT!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
The difficult part of rebutting a Pariah post is that they are so damn long. Is this an example of 'if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit' ? He also blends truth an fiction in a way that makes the ludicrous seem rational. For example: regarding Quote:
The views of the three leading psychological associations on homosexuality:
Quote:
So I suppose this renders any research to the contrary as irrelevent. That is to say: You want opposing research to be irrelevent. I'm just going to repeat a prior statement: The majority of leading scientists used to think the world was flat....
Well, maybe but it was a long time ago. If you date scientific method as currently understood to the writings of Descartes and Bacon, that was in the 17th century and the roundness of Earth had been demonstrated for quite some time. The earliest recorded proof of a round earth is in the writing of Claudius Ptolemy and Eratosthenes of Cyrene, circa 200 BC. That fact was lost on Europe in the middle ages because it was suppressed by the Catholic Church.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I'm NOT gonna tackle all that argument above, but I remain steadfast in my belief that animals have souls.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Pariah, why don't you just worry about getting yourself laid rather than worry about how any of the rest of us get laid? Quote:
Cigarettes, like forms of Vitamin C and Coca Cola, are a mild stimulant. All three can be abused, but moderate use, as encouraged, isn't bad for one's health. The same can't be said for sodomy.
Moderate use of cigarettes isn't bad for one's health? But sodomy is? WTF?
And man, Pariah, for someone who clings so tightly to your religion and fatih, damn, you have a major potty mouth.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Pariah calls people mean names, too. 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
I'm NOT gonna tackle all that argument above, but I remain steadfast in my belief that animals have souls.
Please, please, please don't bring up your cat again....
PLEASE.
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
No, Kaz, not JUSTmy cat..but ALL ANIMALS! All animals have souls, IMO.
Last edited by Beardguy57; 2005-05-18 2:33 PM.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
No, Kaz, not JUSTmy cat..but ALL ANIMALS! All animals have souls, IMO.
As does the Earth, the Trees and all living things. We are all part of one.....
Blessed Be
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Thanks, Magic Jay. Trees, plants, flowers, etc.... And Kaz? Yes..and mosquitos and rats, too. 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
None of those sites actually offers any sort of analytical evidence--And morever, what analysis I have read up on, from sources that correspond with your views, which is prolly what built the foundation for those sites' conlcusions, is 100% hypothesis, and 100% branched assumption.
Could you quote your sources?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
You guys are really pathetic. The second you start losing an argument you tell the person you're arguing with that they need to get laid, and a slew of other crap along those lines.
yeah that's mature.
Last edited by Batwoman; 2005-05-18 3:15 PM.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
You guys are really pathetic. The second you start losing an argument you tell the person you're arguing with that they need to get laid, and a slew of other crap along those lines.
yeah that's mature.
Losing what argument?
Listen, if we fags are pathetic, why bother engaging us in any discussions? Why waste your time if we're pathetic argument-losers. Find something better to do with your time. If you're convinced we aren't worth it and we're going to hell, just wash your hands of us.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Quote:
Romans and Greeks and many many other societies lasted for LONG periods of time when sodomy was acceptable.
"Long periods of time"? Couldn't they have lasted LONGER? I mean, what's a "long reign" in the face of the fact that their actions stagnated their ability to keep going. You do realize that in Rome, Greece, and Athens, there were numerous and growing cases of STDs such as Syphilis, Gonorrhea(sp), and UTI yes? If war and corruption didn't get em', the sex would have.
Here again we see Pariah's use of fiction presented as fact. Syphallis was unknown in Europe in Classical Times. It was long presumed that it was brought from the Americas because it first appeared in the 16th century. Gonorreah can cause pain and sterility but it's rarely fatal or debilitating. And UTI??? that may be but is not always related to sexual activity!
Last edited by magicjay38; 2005-05-18 3:52 PM.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
You guys are really pathetic. The second you start losing an argument you tell the person you're arguing with that they need to get laid, and a slew of other crap along those lines.
yeah that's mature.
Hey, I offered to make his fantasy come true! How much friendlier can I be?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
One last thing: Pariah, since when do you give a flying fuck about other people's colon health so much as to demand they change their ways? What does it have to do with you? How are the big bad homosexuals out to get you and how have they made your life worse so that you find it necessary to wage a personal tirade against them collectively?
I mentioned Reaction Formation to him, but I'm sure he thought I was either kidding or that Freud's concept of reaction formation is foolish.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
It's best to just not let Pariah or ANYBODY else here upset you..and I'm saying that to ALL here, including myself. And, henceforth, I will do my best to put "In my opinion" , or " I believe ... " in posts in the Deep thoughts category. An opinion is an opinion...not the final word on everything. A belief is neither right or wrong...it is a belief. Ok, I have deflector shields on FULL power up here... waiting for Pariah to call me an idiot or something because of this post, LoL!!
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 998 |
What are you Beardguy? Like... 11?
Bob Burden said:
Pie for the pirates,
wine for the dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,405
3000+ posts
|
|
3000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,405 |
11 year olds with beards are just creepy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Pariah, I have to pack moving stuff tonight and don't have the time to read all that right now. I will get back to it shortly, but -after the first few things you wrote- I'd like to clear something up. I am making neither a deductive or conductive argument. I am arguing against various claims against homosexuality (the one I heard personally recently which spurred me to post about penguins was "homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural." This does not mean that my argument for the natural nature of homosexuality has nothing to do with it's moral level. Natural things can't be defined as any one 'good' or 'bad.' It takes further inspection to determine morality of a subject regardless of whether it is a natural occurance or not.).
In my initial post every new paragraph was a new idea -hence making a new paragraph. Sorry for not making that clearer. I thought perhaps that the inconsistancy of 'god's way' versus 'natural' versus 'moralty of minding your own damn business' would have spoken for itself.
I promise to get back to this, maybe later tonight. I'm not sure.
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
Quote:
I'm saying sodomy and its damaging effect on the body along with its increased risk for any sort of infection or possible new strain of STD is a concern to me.
WHY is this a concern for you? You're always ranting about how much you despise sexual relations. Blood donations are tested thoroughly for contaminants before given to patients. You, to my knowledge, don't share needles with heroin whores. Again, why must you give so much of a damn as to dictate the world?
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Well, maybe but it was a long time ago. If you date scientific method as currently understood to the writings of Descartes and Bacon, that was in the 17th century and the roundness of Earth had been demonstrated for quite some time. The earliest recorded proof of a round earth is in the writing of Claudius Ptolemy and Eratosthenes of Cyrene, circa 200 BC. That fact was lost on Europe in the middle ages because it was suppressed by the Catholic Church.
I can't confirm or deny most of that. I do find your bitterness for the Catholic Church on my account humorous though. In any event, this changes nothing. It just says the idea was presented, but also ignored. Even assuming what you said was true, I know for a fact that the idea itself wasn't suppressed, and a minority of people still continued to believe that the earth was round, but they were shot down until the 12-1300s. Much like the present-day research by scientists who feel that homosexuality is a type of mental disease. Their research is free to all, yet it's ignored.
I'll freely admit, that it's hardly conclusive to any degree, even with genuinely reformed homosexuals who embraced a straight lifestyle to speak for them. Since the human brain is just such a complicated mechanism, there are so many scenarios a scientist may not be taking into account. It's not as static as saying "he's exhibiting gay behavior"--There could be any number of reasons for what is described to be "homosexual tendency" and saying a gay person's "fooling themself" into believing they're straight or vice versa. But this a problem that plagues both sides of the argument. Nothing has been absolutely proven biologically, and nothing can be proven by psychiatry--That field is pure assumption from every angle. If absolute certainty is impossible for anything, then that goes double for psychology.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Here again we see Pariah's use of fiction presented as fact.
And here we see an outright lie on your part:
Quote:
Syphallis was unknown in Europe in Classical Times. It was long presumed that it was brought from the Americas because it first appeared in the 16th century. Gonorreah can cause pain and sterility but it's rarely fatal or debilitating. And UTI??? that may be but is not always related to sexual activity!
Syphilis was a well known disease within Europe circa 1300. For some reason, people found the evidence to be shallow. Then there was a contradictory excavation in in the 90s.
Quote:
Joseph Carter and Greek Colonization
The excavation at Metaponto actually took place outside of the ancient city in the area of present day Pantanello. It was a rural site, one of the first of it's kind and covered the period from about 700 B.C with the first Greek colonization to roughly 400 A.D. corresponding to the fall of the Roman Empire. The city and the rural chora had a symbiotic relationship; the town would not have able to exist without the rich rural farmland surronding it. The chora of Metaponto is unique largely because it is contains some of the best preserved examples of land division lines in rural Greek sites. At Metaponto his team was searching for the changes in landscape and the distribution of land. This was done by looking for changes in the composition of deposits of organic remains; primarily ancient seeds and bones. What began as an evaluation of the architecture and the pottery evolved into a multidisciplinary approach. Paleobotanists were employed to examine seed remains, faunal analysists and physical anthropologists studied human and animal remains and geomorphologists looked for changes in the soil. The team was especially interested in the quality of life of the ancient peoples. The multidisciplinary approaches enabled the experts to recognize many diseases that afflicted the Greek colonists and their Roman successors. The discovery of syphilis in 1992 proved that Syphilis had existed in
Tomb at the Pantanello Necropolis
Europe 2500 years ago and took the blame for the disease off the Native Americans. The presence of Syphilis was detected by the careful examination of human remains. Before this evidence was revealed anthropologists believed Syphilis came to Europe with Columbus (some still hold this belief).
There was indeed disease that racked Classical Greece and Rome, diverse of the plague, with identified extraneous symptoms, but because bacterial treatments were not closely documented that long ago, historians don't speak with conclusivity on the subject. But considering the casual behavior of the Classical Romans and Greeks, I don't think it takes a genius to narrow down the odds of where exactly these diseases came from (whether they're identified as syphilis or not).
Brief history of syphilis that backs up the prior article in showing syphilis' presence during the 1300-1400s as well as evidence showing its presence in Greece:
Quote:
History of Syphilis
The origins of syphilis are not known, though it does appear to have been documented by Quick Facts about: Hippocrates
Medical practitioner who is regarded as the father of medicine; author of the Hippocratic Oath (circa 460-377 BC)Hippocrates in Classical Greece in its venereal/tertiary form. This form was known in a Greek city of Metaponto in Quick Facts about: Italy
A republic in southern Europe on the Italian Peninsula; was the core of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire between the 4th century BC and the 5th century ADItaly about 600 BC, and at Quick Facts about: Pompeii
Ancient city southeast of Naples that was buried by a volcanic eruption from VesuviusPompeii where additional archaeological evidence of uniquely grooved teeth of the children of mothers with syphilis has been found.
Evidence of syphilis in medieval Europe has been found at the site of a Quick Facts about: 13
The cardinal number that is the sum of twelve and one13-Quick Facts about: 14th
Quick Summary not found for this subject14th century Augustinian friary in the northeastern Quick Facts about: English
An Indo-European language belonging to the West Germanic branch; the official language of Britain and the United States and most of the Commonwealth countriesEnglish port of Quick Facts about: Kingston upon Hull
Quick Summary not found for this subjectKingston upon Hull.
This friary provided medical care including palliative care and burial rites for "wretched souls". Quick Facts about: Skeleton
The internal supporting structure that gives an artifact its shapeSkeletons discovered at the friary bear bone lesions typical of tertiary venereal syphilis. Carbon dating affirms these skeletons were buried during the existence of the friary, which was destroyed in 1539.
Examination of the friary site revealed bone lesions on two-thirds of the skeletons, including those closest to the altar, a position reserved for the richer and more generous patrons of the order.
This suggests the privileged of Hull had had syphilis for a long time. At that time, Hull was the second largest port of England after London and was a sophisticated metropolitan international port.
Another school of thought has it that syphilis was brought back to Europe from the Quick Facts about: New World
The hemisphere that includes North and South AmericaNew World by the crew of Quick Facts about: Christopher Columbus
Italian navigator who discovered the New World in the service of Spain while looking for a route to China (1451-1506)Christopher Columbus's first voyage. The evidence is weak and circumstantial, and based on the fact that the first recognized outbreak was at Naples in 1494 where a number of Spaniards from the Columbus crew participated in the army of Quick Facts about: Charles VIII of France
Quick Summary not found for this subjectCharles VIII of France. This theory is challenged by the evidence of syphilis in Hull.
Regarding gonorreah, whilst your claim of rare fatality may be true, the disease remained everpresent and, on a large scale, could very well act as a continual nuissance. Variety of disease, lethal or not, takes its toll on society. In gonorreah's case, it did just that: Gonorreah worked all flanks; it killed people, it deterred their ability to live normally, and, the worst part, it kills newborns--If not seriously, and permanently, incapacitating them.
As for UTI, I don't really think it's an accurate claim that there's no way of knowing if people got UTI from sex back then or not. It's more pronouned as a sexual disease than it is as a chance infection. As I said before, considering the majority of pre-marital relations, the culprit's direction is pointed in rather clearly.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Pariah, why don't you just worry about getting yourself laid rather than worry about how any of the rest of us get laid?
Jim, please don't tell me you don't see the potential for bacterial immunity and viral mutation when it comes to effects of sodomy. AIDS and HIV didn't just spread to people through sex during their more pronounced outbreaks, past and present. This isn't just about the individuals (who are actually mass numbered, so "individuals" is kinda innappropriate) who aren't me, it's about the virulent implications of a mass spread ideal and practice of sodomy.
Quote:
Moderate use of cigarettes isn't bad for one's health? But sodomy is? WTF
*shrug* Well, my defintion of "moderate" is a cigarette like once or twice every three weeks when I need to fight off any anxiety. I don't find that really effects me much. Pills can give you heart burn, too many perscribed ones at once can give you acid reflux....Feh! I just don't see much difference or harm. One cigarette compared to a session of sodomy. I realize I've never actually participated, but to my understanding, some coughing from one sig doesn't really equal the abrasiveness and potential disease delivered upon someone's ass.
Quote:
And man, Pariah, for someone who clings so tightly to your religion and fatih, damn, you have a major potty mouth.
If I meant them seriously in the purest context of the word "fuck" when directed at Uschi, I'd be more ashamed, but that was all fun and games (frustration). It's no more inflammatory than the word "darn". I try to stay away from saying God's name in vain more than I try to not use the more commonly considered to be offending tones, which are really kinda hollow once you think about it.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
None of those sites actually offers any sort of analytical evidence--And morever, what analysis I have read up on, from sources that correspond with your views, which is prolly what built the foundation for those sites' conlcusions, is 100% hypothesis, and 100% branched assumption.
Could you quote your sources?
Sources, that you'd find appropriate escape me at the moment. I'll get back to your question though later.
Quote:
Uschi said:
WHY is this a concern for you? You're always ranting about how much you despise sexual relations. Blood donations are tested thoroughly for contaminants before given to patients. You, to my knowledge, don't share needles with heroin whores. Again, why must you give so much of a damn as to dictate the world?
Uschi, I know you're gonna hate me for saying this, but as a Christian, I have an obligation not to sit by idly and let things crumble, help my fellow man, etc.. So I give my bare minimum of help: I try to be informative. Plus, I don't want to live in a world left vacant for a destructive force barely stoppable by anything. That creates a whole new kind of paranoia. Apathy or not, in all seriousness, I want to have some confidence that I won't die when I inhale the environment or shake someone's hand. I realize you feel I'm a creature of apathetic notions, but truly, I always end up admitting that-that's wishful thinking on my part. You know I use to be really bad until I rehabilitated my personality. Anyway, to be more direct, I'm sure you can encompass the possibility and likelihood of [sodomy/wide-spread sodomy] eventually creating a medical deficit. Bacteria can mutate with more immunities, viruses can mutate into new strains. You can't give these things a window of opportunity to flood any no matter what the size is. On a long enough timeline, it won't matter how many drugs are tested before they're dispenced, they're always a crack for the disease to lurch through, and in many cases that crack is human liability. AIDS/HIV should have died out decades ago, but it didn't. In the 70s, new, better versions of condoms were said to be a flagship that would stagnate the disease, but that didn't happen. I feel there's credence to my suspicions.
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-05-19 10:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Nothing has been absolutely proven biologically, and nothing can be proven by psychiatry--That field is pure assumption from every angle. If absolute certainty is impossible for anything, then that goes double for psychology.
Well, please forgive the field of Psychology if they decide not to heed the words of a guy barely, if at all, into legal adulthood.
Experimental psychology does rely on the experimental method so as to remove "pure assumption from every angle."
Study the field more in depth before you damn it from your chair in front of your computer.
You're a cocky son of a bitch, aren't ya? Many teenagers are.
With age comes wisdom. I hope it's true for you as well.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2005-05-19 12:23 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
*shrug* Well, my defintion of "moderate" is a cigarette like once or twice every three weeks when I need to fight off any anxiety.
Now I've figured you out! Of course, it was so obvious, I should have seen it.
If YOU do it, it's ok. There's no harm, no moral violations.
Got it. Whew, finally, now we know the real Pariah. If he does it, it's OK. If he doesn't, it's morally corrupt.
Egocentrism is a good thing, isn't it, little buddy? 
Quote:
One cigarette compared to a session of sodomy. I realize I've never actually participated, but to my understanding, some coughing from one sig doesn't really equal the abrasiveness and potential disease delivered upon someone's ass.
Well, your understanding is misinformed. Trust me. OK, just trust me. "One session" does not mean the end of your sphincter and the life of your colon, ok.
Does this mean wearing a condom? Of course it does. I'd recommend that just like I recommend people wearing the seat belts, even if they're only running to the grocery. One moment of unprotected sex is not an automatic exposure to anything. One moment of an unworn seat belt doesn't mean death in a crash either. But both are smart safety precautions to take.
And I haven't heard you rail against driving despite the hundreds of people who die in car crashes daily.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Uschi, I know you're gonna hate me for saying this, but as a Christian, I have an obligation not to sit by idly and let things crumble, help my fellow man, etc.. So I give my bare minimum of help: I try to be informative. Plus, I don't want to live in a world left vacant for a destructive force barely stoppable by anything.
Keep in mind, grasshopper, that the United States is not a Christian theocracy. You may have your obligation as dicated by your religion and I do respect that, but, I know you're gonna hate me for saying this, your obligation to your religion has to always be tempered by the Constitution of the United States. That's the law of the land, despite however much of it anyone wants to argue was derived from the Ten Commandments, etc. If the Framers wanted the Bible to control, they would have said so. They were forming a new government, they had ample opportunity to bring the Bible to bear.
And they didn't.
As such, dicates from the Bible do not in and of themsevles constitute grounds for legal action or inaction.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
If you're going to scrutinize a post I made, do me the favor and encapsulate every comment in an individual post. Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Well, please forgive the field of Psychology if they decide not to heed the words of a guy barely, if at all, into legal adulthood.
More misplaced conviction. Mensa has let five 3 year olds in its ranks over the past 35 years. If an admonishment of your judgmental attitude towards people younger than you trying to argue your POV from me won't do any good, I'm sure you'll trust them if they say your standard of youthful ignorance isn't at all a universal constant.
By the by, is this constant age knee-jerk an example of you taking out your pent up anger, from the Pete Townshend jokes, on me? I hope you realize I never bothered with that running gag.
Quote:
Experimental psychology does rely on the experimental method so as to remove "pure assumption from every angle."
And that's the thing, it's impossible for any "experimental methods" to interpret the human mind with such conclusivity. The fact that scientists haven't actually established any sort of wide-spread standard for percieved homosexual behavior, as they thought they could, proves that. Individuals are too unique for any tests to dictate accuracy on why and/or how a person is gay. They shouldn't be speaking with such absolutes--It's patently fallacious to do so.
Don't get me wrong Jim, I have much respect and competence in the field of psychology. However, this isn't just about interpreting certain past complexes or syndromes, they're trying to interpret how the body communicates with the mind based on unsubstantiated ideas regarding diversly formed brains. Perhaps that'd be enough if it wasn't for their inability to create a re-occurring pattern from brain to brain--The ones they assume to be of homosexual nature.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
If YOU do it, it's ok. There's no harm, no moral violations.
Hey, I could quote a bigger more smarter organization than I regarding the ideal averages for moderate smoking habits. I mean the Tobbacco Companies have a tightly wound organization with a lot of middle-aged people, who I'm sure went to college and such a such. It's funny how they'd prolly say it's just as safe to smoke a bit more frequently than I do (Board of Health would prolly concur with them to some extent). Anyway, you missed my initial point and took that statement out of its context. I find that the orthodox means of ingestion, injection, and inhalation of most medicine and drugs makes my case as well as adressess your "moral violations" comments very efficintly.
Quote:
Well, your understanding is misinformed. Trust me. OK, just trust me. "One session" does not mean the end of your sphincter and the life of your colon, ok.
I didn't say that. I did, however, say that the assault of smoke on the body from one smoking session doesn't quantify in terms of damage as much as a session of sodomy does.
Quote:
And I haven't heard you rail against driving despite the hundreds of people who die in car crashes daily.
Now this all goes back to my conversation with Uschi regarding the intent to hurt one's self or another.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Keep in mind, grasshopper, that the United States is not a Christian theocracy.
And I was never trying to say it was/is or should be, I was merely explaining to her why I wasn't apathetic to my prophesied future under the influence of casual sex and sodomy. I'm going at length to explain my convictions and try to inform you of what I find to be a grave mistake because it's in my Christian nature to do so. Just because I said that, it does not mean that I'm telling everyone else to be Christian or adopt Christian habits.....I encourage it though!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
I didn't say that. I did, however, say that the assault of smoke on the body from one smoking session doesn't quantify in terms of damage as much as a session of sodomy does.
You have no data on which to base this conclusion. There are no comparable standards for measuring "damage."
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
By the by, is this constant age knee-jerk an example of you taking out your pent up anger, from the Pete Townshend jokes, on me? I hope you realize I never bothered with that running gag.
No, it has nothing to do with that. I don't have any pent up anger about the Townshend jokes. They come from little minds.
It has everything to do with the fact that you're (a) young and yet (b) feel you have so much of the world already figured out from your limited experience.
Man, that's arrogant.
And I will argue that any act of sodomy that's not rape is not done with the intent to inflict pain, self- or otherwise. If entry is painful, it's because it's not done properly, just as entry into a vagina is painful for the woman if she, also, is not ready.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2005-05-19 1:33 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
You have no data on which to base this conclusion. There are no comparable standards for measuring "damage."
True.
How about "negative effect"?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
And I will argue that any act of sodomy that's not rape is not done with the intent to inflict pain, self- or otherwise. If entry is painful, it's because it's not done properly, just as entry into a vagina is painful for the woman if she, also, is not ready.
Assuming the participant is a charmed individual like yourself whose educated in these matters, the fact alone that you know the act wasn't meant to be done or inflict damage and/or pain in such a way (obviously not the case for the vagina), yet you do it anyway reveals an adaquete amount of evidence pointing towards the intent to hurt you or your co-participant (pain or not).
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-05-19 2:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
You have no data on which to base this conclusion. There are no comparable standards for measuring "damage."
True.
How about "negative effect"?
Again, no way to measure this "negative effect." I still think in this area, you're reaching.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Assuming the participant is a charmed individual like yourself whose educated in these matters
You mean "charming" and "who's."
Quote:
the fact alone that you know the act wasn't meant to be done or inflict damage and/or pain in such a way (obviously not the case for the vagina), yet you do it anyway reveals an adaquete amount of evidence pointing towards the intent to hurt you or your co-participant (pain or not).
Not at all. If it "hurts a little at first then feels good later" (those who are bottoms clearly say this to be the case), then "pain" was not the intention, just merely a nuisance at the start.
I still don't see why you're so bent on hanging a moral evaluation on something based on the extent to which it causes pain. Again, I point to childbirth...from all accounts, a damned painful process. Yet it is not morally repugnant, it is morally beautiful.
And do you wish to tell me that Priests who remain celibate never feel any physical discomfort from their vows of chasity? Are we to then believe that because they're experiencing pain/discomfort, their vows are immoral?
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2005-05-19 2:15 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Well, maybe but it was a long time ago. If you date scientific method as currently understood to the writings of Descartes and Bacon, that was in the 17th century and the roundness of Earth had been demonstrated for quite some time. The earliest recorded proof of a round earth is in the writing of Claudius Ptolemy and Eratosthenes of Cyrene, circa 200 BC. That fact was lost on Europe in the middle ages because it was suppressed by the Catholic Church.
I can't confirm or deny most of that. I do find your bitterness for the Catholic Church on my account humorous though. In any event, this changes nothing. It just says the idea was presented, but also ignored. Even assuming what you said was true, I know for a fact that the idea itself wasn't suppressed, and a minority of people still continued to believe that the earth was round, but they were shot down until the 12-1300s. Much like the present-day research by scientists who feel that homosexuality is a type of mental disease. Their research is free to all, yet it's ignored.
I'll freely admit, that it's hardly conclusive to any degree, even with genuinely reformed homosexuals who embraced a straight lifestyle to speak for them. Since the human brain is just such a complicated mechanism, there are so many scenarios a scientist may not be taking into account. It's not as static as saying "he's exhibiting gay behavior"--There could be any number of reasons for what is described to be "homosexual tendency" and saying a gay person's "fooling themself" into believing they're straight or vice versa. But this a problem that plagues both sides of the argument. Nothing has been absolutely proven biologically, and nothing can be proven by psychiatry--That field is pure assumption from every angle. If absolute certainty is impossible for anything, then that goes double for psychology.
Tell it to Galeleo and Copernicus. A simple google search for Eratosthenes of Cyrene would have provided you with multiple sources. The Catholic Encyclopedia, an excellent referance, would probably confirm this also. That it wasn't known in the middle ages can be attributed to the fact that most people could not read or write. Much of ancient science and knowledge was lost in the fire at the Alexandria Library. Hmm... I wonder who was responsible for that torch job?
Your arguments seem centered around this idea that science doesn't prove anything. You're right. But based upon a preponderance of the evidence we can say with X confidence that Y is the expected outcome of Z. As for psychiatry, Freud was the first to scientifically study the mind. It was faulty judgement to generalize based on his study of Late-Victorian era women with mental problems. But it was a good beginning and the field has changed remarkably in the last 100 years. There are much stronger biologic components in the practice. Have you ever considered seeing one yourself? I'm sure Lithium would help.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Here again we see Pariah's use of fiction presented as fact.
Quote:
And here we see an outright lie on your part:
Quote:
Syphallis was unknown in Europe in Classical Times. It was long presumed that it was brought from the Americas because it first appeared in the 16th century. Gonorreah can cause pain and sterility but it's rarely fatal or debilitating. And UTI??? that may be but is not always related to sexual activity!
You know, Asshole, I maybe wrong on something, but I never tell a bold faced lie. The evidence on pre-Colombian syphillis is inconclusive. A simillar disease called Yaws was present in Africa prior to CC's voyage. It may have mutated into syphillis in the cooler climes of Europe. The evidence is thin. What IS known is that an especially virulent form raged across Europe beginning in the early 16th century, presumably introduced by Crystobal himself and his sailors. At any rate, it's a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.
Quote:
From Magenta :
Master, I grow weary of argueing with Pariah! When can we return to Transylvania on the planet Transexual?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
I'm not sure its fair to accuse Pariah of lying.
Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he isn't simply mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
As for psychiatry, Freud was the first to scientifically study the mind.
As much as I am a supporter of much of what you say, this statement is erroneous.
Wilhelm Wundt of Leipzig is credited with being the first to approach "the mind" scientifically with his establishment of his "volker psychologie" and his experimental psychology laboratory, the first formal one of its kind, at Leipzig, in 1879.
Freud did indeed attempt a program of a "scientific psychology," but his efforts and writings came well after Wundt (as Wundt was roughly 20 years Freud's senior).
Wundt's findings were derived from laboratory experimentation, whereas Freud's were derived from his clinical work (it has been argued that Freud's Judaism kept him from attaining a university professorship).
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Pariah said:
Uschi, I know you're gonna hate me for saying this, but as a Christian, I have an obligation not to sit by idly and let things crumble, help my fellow man, etc.. So I give my bare minimum of help: I try to be informative. Plus, I don't want to live in a world left vacant for a destructive force barely stoppable by anything.
Keep in mind, grasshopper, that the United States is not a Christian theocracy. You may have your obligation as dicated by your religion and I do respect that, but, I know you're gonna hate me for saying this, your obligation to your religion has to always be tempered by the Constitution of the United States. That's the law of the land, despite however much of it anyone wants to argue was derived from the Ten Commandments, etc. If the Framers wanted the Bible to control, they would have said so. They were forming a new government, they had ample opportunity to bring the Bible to bear.
And they didn't.
As such, dicates from the Bible do not in and of themsevles constitute grounds for legal action or inaction.
Agreed. I think the Constitution relates more to Roberts' Rules of Order than to the Bible. The principle authors were Deists, not Christians.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm not sure its fair to accuse Pariah of lying.
Even if he's wrong, that doesn't mean he isn't simply mistaken.
He called me a lier, not the other way around. I called him an asshole for saying that.
|
|
|
|
|
