Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

The institution of marriage itself is founded on ideological principles. Personally, a man can have as many wives as he wants if they consent; and likewise, a woman can have as many husbands as she wants. Realistically this is impractical because humans are irrational, jealous beings; but it's important we realize that the idea of "marriage" as a naturally occurring phenomenon is absolute bollocks. It's an economic and social institution.

 

[skeptik]

You have been bringing da sikkk crunk down on dis bitch lately here, Patrick. I'm very upset, by the way, that you ignored my PM.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Patrick's totally up in this bitch, like whoa.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

*I find this stance of yours especially troubling and hypocritical given your utterly fanatical belief in autonomy and self-making one's life. Really man, you're a living, breathing pile of stupid contradictions and I almost wonder how you convince yourself of all of the baseless, disturbingly anti-human/sociopathic shit you believe.

I am curious, how does his statement show nothing but contradictions? And yes, I understand that you are using a quote, however, you felt that it was appropriate to use towards him to prove whatever point that it was that you were trying to prove. I'm saying this because of the fact that Dakryn's posts show that he does not feel that homosexuality, or any other controversial subject of the sort (according to what is controversial to the left-right),should be illegal. He merely disagrees with it based on a logical and rational manner. Personally I'm completely ok with homosexuality (Hell, in the heat of the moment, I could take penetration and find it completely ok, in the standards in which most do not considerate it, given the circumstances). However, that does not mean that it is not irrational in a lifetime view of perspective. How does this really effect anything? It is merely an abstract illusion on a practicing person's part. Or, it is just a thing and some stuff, which is all that anything boils down to from an individual perspective.

 

[Pessimism]

V5's point was that his view on homosexuality was not rational or logical in any way, shape or form.

 

[Dak]

I don't care if such views are considered irrational or illogical, I am just sick of the tired song of "disagreement = hate".

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I am curious, how does his statement show nothing but contradictions? And yes, I understand that you are using a quote, however, you felt that it was appropriate to use towards him to prove whatever point that it was that you were trying to prove. I'm saying this because of the fact that Dakryn's posts show that he does not feel that homosexuality, or any other controversial subject of the sort (according to what is controversial to the left-right),should be illegal. He merely disagrees with it based on a logical and rational manner. Personally I'm completely ok with homosexuality (Hell, in the heat of the moment, I could take penetration and find it completely ok, in the standards in which most do not considerate it, given the circumstances). However, that does not mean that it is not irrational in a lifetime view of perspective. How does this really effect anything? It is merely an abstract illusion on a practicing person's part. Or, it is just a thing and some stuff, which is all that anything boils down to from an individual perspective.

Um, what the fuck did you just say bro? Most of this post makes no sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

However, that does not mean that it is not irrational in a lifetime view of perspective.

I take you to be saying that homosexuality isn't rational because it doesn't contribute to the reproduction of species (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm glad that both you and Dak are willing to "allow" homosexuality; but the homosexual drive isn't any more unnatural than a heterosexual drive. If we concern ourselves merely with the sexual drive, it's all the same.

A lot of arguments seem to circle around the idea that people "become" gay because of some circumstances of their upbringing. This argument is tiresome and flawed because gays emerge from all strata of society and from all different kinds of households. Furthermore, plenty of straight people have emerged from absolutely horrible upbringings. There are no set parameters by which we can gauge whether or not a child will be gay. Saying that specific circumstances contribute to homosexuality suggests that we are able to do so.

The reason this doesn't work is because sexuality is determined by a plethora of objects, sensations, and experiences that take on completely different meanings for different subjects. This process is the same, whether one is gay or straight. There is no wrench that has been thrown into the sexual development of someone who is gay; it occurs just as naturally as one who is straight.

I'm pretty sure Dak would file this under his "junk science" category, but I would suggest that everyone read Freud's 3 Essays on Sexuality, especially "Infantile Sexuality."

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I take you to be saying that homosexuality isn't rational because it doesn't contribute to the reproduction of species (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm glad that both you and Dak are willing to "allow" homosexuality; but the homosexual drive isn't any more unnatural than a heterosexual drive. If we concern ourselves merely with the sexual drive, it's all the same.

A lot of arguments seem to circle around the idea that people "become" gay because of some circumstances of their upbringing. This argument is tiresome and flawed because gays emerge from all strata of society and from all different kinds of households. Furthermore, plenty of straight people have emerged from absolutely horrible upbringings. There are no set parameters by which we can gauge whether or not a child will be gay. Saying that specific circumstances contribute to homosexuality suggests that we are able to do so.

The reason this doesn't work is because sexuality is determined by a plethora of objects, sensations, and experiences that take on completely different meanings for different subjects. This process is the same, whether one is gay or straight. There is no wrench that has been thrown into the sexual development of someone who is gay; it occurs just as naturally as one who is straight.

I'm pretty sure Dak would file this under his "junk science" category, but I would suggest that everyone read Freud's 3 Essays on Sexuality, especially "Infantile Sexuality."

It has nothing to do with the reproduction of your species. It's more of carrying on your own seed. As for being willing to "allow" homosexuality, it's not that I want to "allow" it. I don't care. I would comment on more of your post but I need to hurry to work.

 

[Matt]

Dakryn, I think you should try putting yourself in someone else's shoes for once. As someone who was born a homosexual, I honestly do not see why I shouldn't be allowed to get married, or serve in the military, or enjoy the same tax benefits as 'normal' people do. If you were gay, wouldn't you want those same things?

People like you who spend time worrying about 'the gays and their damn rights' make me laugh. Is the world gonna end if I can marry who I want? Will it in any way affect you? No. Will the military collapse when dadt ends? Will 'tens of thousands' of service members resign in protest? No.

Zomg, we can't produce children, so I can't contribute to the coming overpopulation problem. However, I can help alleviate the amount of parentless children by a small amount. Has that thought crossed your mind, or are you one of those dumbasses who think that gay couples will 'indoctrinate' their children to be homosexuals?

 

[Dak]

Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with government/laws/taxes anyway, regardless whether its hetero or homo sexual.

Will the military collapse immediately? No. Will performance further degrade? Based on personal observations of closeted gays performance in the military, quite confident that it will.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.

 

[Matt]

Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with government/laws/taxes anyway, regardless whether its hetero or homo sexual.

Will the military collapse immediately? No. Will performance further degrade? Based on personal observations of closeted gays performance in the military, quite confident that it will.

I like how you avoided the original question. Also, the military is always first to implement needed social changes, and I contend performance will not degrade due to people wishing to keep their jobs, and whatnot.

 

[Einherjar86]

Will performance further degrade? Based on personal observations of closeted gays performance in the military, quite confident that it will.

If this is true, it has nothing to do with the essence of "gayness" and everything to do with the ways homosexuals are treated in this country and the controversy they know awaits them within institutions such as the military.

 

[Pessimism]

And counting many people personally know homosexuals who outperform hetero's in the field, well... well, let's just stick with anecdotal evidence being fucking terrible.

 

[Matt]

If this is true, it has nothing to do with the essence of "gayness" and everything to do with the ways homosexuals are treated in this country and the controversy they know awaits them within institutions such as the military.

It's also not true. Dakryn observed like four gay people. I remember him talking about it in earlier discussions.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I don't care if such views are considered irrational or illogical, I am just sick of the tired song of "disagreement = hate".

I don't think anybody hates you, but they do have contempt for your lack of reason and logic.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's also not true. Dakryn observed like four gay people. I remember him talking about it in earlier discussions.

I didn't mean to imply that it was. I only wanted to point out that making a normative claim that gays perform poorly in the military (as though it's an inherent quality of their orientation) is unfounded; it's the same as claiming that blacks are lazy or Jews are greedy. You can observe actual cases of this (I'm sure there are some gays who perform poorly in the military, just as some heterosexuals perform poorly), but it has nothing to do with the essence of their "blackness" or "Jew-ness."

 

[Dak]

Anecdotal evidence is hardly worse than using surveys and census for anything, which is voluntary data, and easily manipulatable. Anecdotal evidence does not have to account for much, especially not to anyone but the observer, but it does count for more than the opinions of people with zero experience in a given field or situation.

Either way, time will prove these things out. These are expectations, which at some point will either prove to be right or wrong.

 

[Pessimism]

I'm pretty positive that time has already proved this issue wrong since many militaries around the world have openly gay members and the quality of their ranks has not decreased.