Homophobia

[Misanthrope]

You know, it IS ok to give society some credit SOMETIMES. Yes, they're stupid most of the time, but like I asked Misanthrope, do you mean to say that we should release everyone from jail? Is it not ok to collectively come to the realization (notice I did not say "collectively decide") that indiscriminate murder would lead to chaos? Similarly, we've come to the REALIZATION, because of advances in science, that homosexuality is indeed very natural and not just some deviant fetish. These are factual realizations, not to be confused with unfounded rhetoric.

Your logic is still faulty. No you cannot give credit to society never. When that happens you stop being an individual. I rather be a miserable lonley individual than a society and moral believer like yourself. Your example is faulty because outright murder without a good reason is an isolated thing. All murders have a reason shure world would be a more violent place if anyone who wished for justice would take it in their own hands, but it would also be a world without speculation and unfair judgements. I would say half of the people convicted for murder never was confronted with substancial evidence and/or had a good reason to commit such act. If you seek to understand what im saying it would be constructive to someone to torture your boyfriend in front of your eyes for days, im shure your judgement about Murder would change no matter what excuse or procedure you would wish to take, you would wish to take the torturer's life. If a society could be perfect and be objetive on trials without corruption and prejudgements of any kind,it would work, but those are unrealistic situations. All men are faulty and corrupted, society is made from such men, therefore society will never be reliable for anything and nothing it produces ( like moral or law ) will be reliable either. And you could just accept that you could had expressed your opinion without such a cheap argument like morals too

 

[Satori]

Verbal masturbation is alive and well I see.

the perpetually evil one,

Satori

 

[Misanthrope]

Is is it not always?

 

[Evisceratrix]

Originally posted by Protocol


swedes, if isolated, would go extinct too at the current rate - the only reason our population is growing is the immigrants, and i assure you all of sweden isn't gay. =)

hey i learned about that in my cultural geography class! the 'population pyramid' (a model based on the age groups in a country) is like inverted in sweden, so that more old people are at the top than young people at the bottom.

you all need to get to work! start having lots of sex! what are we gonna do if there arent enough little swedish kids running around rocking out and making more of the absolute (IMO) best metal in the world!?

im sorry, i am just kidding of course! blah.

 

[Xtokalon]

Originally posted by Lina
You know, it IS ok to give society some credit SOMETIMES. Yes, they're stupid most of the time, but like I asked Misanthrope, do you mean to say that we should release everyone from jail? Is it not ok to collectively come to the realization (notice I did not say "collectively decide") that indiscriminate murder would lead to chaos? Similarly, we've come to the REALIZATION, because of advances in science, that homosexuality is indeed very natural and not just some deviant fetish. These are factual realizations, not to be confused with unfounded rhetoric.

Jail shmail. That's an irrellevant red herring. It's ok to give society credit when it's right, which is sometimes. But upon what reasoning do we determine when it's right? Here's a brief list from which you can choose:

1) society is right because society is right

2) society is right because Lina says so because she has observed what most of the people believe.

3) society is right because Lina understands something, and there is somekind of logic underlying these conversations that makes it possible to speak at all.

(ack not a very comprehensive- comprehensible?- list but you get the idea)

Secondly, what's science got to do with it? What if scientists were able to isolate a homo gene or the biological basis of homosexuality and hence 'cure' and even eradicate homosexuality for anyone who wished it? Should it be done? Will we argue about whether homosexuals should seek the therapy? One side will insist that homosexuals who choose to remain homosexual are evil. And the other side will say nothing is neccesary and that it's ok if homosexuals remain homosexual. Science within itself doesn't mobilize "shoulds." It lacks that power.

It's the fact that the dimmer members of our society are allowed to refuse to acknowledge what science has taught us about homosexuality that these hateful views are considered valid "opinions."

This reasoning seems radical. I don't understand how "science" can vindicate something, apart from showing those who *use* science against homosexuality where they err factually. But there is an underlying logic, it seems, that guides moral casuistry and it's quite outside of (natural) science. Again, what is this logic? Is it the most popular views of a society? Convention and norm? What "Lina wants"? These are highly problematic choices and each deserve their own meticulous exploration.

And you're absolutely correct in saying that anyone posting here thinks they're right. Which is what I went yelling to my boyfriend after your comment. But you didn't say that at all when you were singling me out.

Misanthrope singled you out. I only sought to make a point after his example. My condolences goes out to dune.

 

[Evisceratrix]

Originally posted by Sadistik
I'm glad I brought this up some good (and some not so good) thoughts!

As it is, my response to the "natural" argument (as referring to procreation) is that we ARE more than just penises or vaginas with arms and legs. I've often heard the word "human" defined in boring, staid, and dry biological terms, but the single best definition I've ever heard is rather philisophical: "Humans are the only species in the world with instinctual, comprehended knowledge of their fate" (re: death). It is this fact alone that makes us more. As Socrates said "above all else, we wish to be happy" (which, to my professor's suprise, and admiration-I'm such a braggart- I modified to "Given that all base needs of survival are met, above all all else, we wish to be happy"). My argument for the "morality" of homosexuality is :Would you deny a dying man happiness and accepetance? We are all dying, so don't deny it for anyone

that's beautiful!

 

[Xtokalon]

"Would you deny a dying man happiness and acceptance? We are all dying, so don't deny it for anyone " -- the great Sage Sadistik

I find that beautiful too.

 

[Belial]

Thanks for bringing that quote to my attention.

 

[Evisceratrix]

Originally posted by moonchild

sorry, someone else wanted to know where my old one came from...this new one comes from a still from the movie metropolis, its an old german sci-fi silent movie, its quite weird, if u get the chance to watch it do

my head hurts too

cute cat btw prefer black cats though or is that racist against white cats?

want to hear something crazy? i have metropolis on DVD. i dont have a DVD player though...wtf?! haha i have the chicken run DVD too. havent seen either one yet...i tried to watch metropolis one night and i was too stoned and sleepy and fell asleep . well youve gotten me motivated to try to watch it again.

my head still hurts! its been hurting for days. its that time of the school year. i got all ecxited listening to in flames and tried to headbang and payed dearly with some acute pain.

and ohhhhhh thank you. people who say nice things about my cat rule. haha. i wanted a black cat, but then i was at a friends house and we were watching the entire "...of the dead" trilogy and this little kitten played with me forever, and fell asleep on my stomanch, and so i fell in love. she likes really likes metal, believe it or not.


was it opet that said 'is that satans little helper?"-
well, no your mistaken! damn i had to clarify this for satori once already. she is satan incarnate- the satan of the kitty realm. she will deny catnip to your immortal soul. she will take away your scratching post...scratch out your eyes! so be a good kitty... or else.

and hey lina! i heard today on national public radio that its mark twains b-day and thought of you! i always liked your quote..uh oh. now theres a thread idea!

 

[Tribal]

Originally posted by veil the sky

As for the 'unnatural' objection, it just makes no sense. Homosexuality MUST be natural because it occurs within nature! If homosexuals could only be created by extensive laboratory work and manufacture, then maybe you could say it was unnatural, but even then only maybe. Homosexuals are born like heterosexuals, that makes them just as natural in every way. You can't point to some natural features (reproduction) to support the claim that other natural features (homosexuality) are unnatural!

It happens in nature as a show of domination in a group, not a life style. Unless this is the next step in evolution, I can't agree.

 

[Sadistik]

Sadistik. What monster have you created?

Sorry Belial....this good, though. I like hearing peoples thoughts on controversial subjects...........

 

[Lina]

Xtokalon, I notice you continue to dodge my most basic questions: Do you think some people deserve to be in jail? if yes, why?

Your posts are completely irelevent to everything I've said on this thread. You're ready to argue the use of the word "and." I have no idea where you get the notion that I want to decide what is right and wrong in the world. I've said nothing of the sort. Is this a tactic you learned in your psychology courses -- misrepresent someone's words until everyone forgets what they originally were?

Just answer my first question. I'm curious to see you play with the English language to come up with a non-hypocritical answer. This oughta be fun.

 

[Belial]

Originally posted by Sadistik

Sorry Belial....this good, though. I like hearing peoples thoughts on controversial subjects...........

I was joking. Hence the

 

[Sadistik]

I ws joking too, just being sarcastic....hehehe....I came close to singlehanded-ly destrying the Opeth board!

 

[Xtokalon]

Originally posted by Lina
Xtokalon, I notice you continue to dodge my most basic questions: Do you think some people deserve to be in jail? if yes, why?

Did I dodge it or did I dismiss it as irrelevant? Do I think some people deserve to be in jail? Yes.

Your posts are completely irelevent to everything I've said on this thread.

That's just your error. I was not commenting on everything you said in this thread.

I have no idea where you get the notion that I want to decide what is right and wrong in the world.

Error #2: I don't have that notion; i'm actually saying that you should (want to decide etc.), and that you should do it whole-heartedly, freely, unapologetically, steadfastly.

Is this a tactic you learned in your psychology courses -- misrepresent someone's words until everyone forgets what they originally were?

Of course not silly. Why be so offensive to X?

Just answer my first question. I'm curious to see you play with the English language to come up with a non-hypocritical answer.

<gasps in horror> I am shocked, grieved and shocked. If you will accuse someoone of being 'hypcritical' I suggest you understand him first.

This oughta be fun.

Fun for Lina, no fun for the wronged and abused (pssst like X!).

*******

On a serious note, I'm being flippant only because my mood at this moment prevents me from being otherwise. Indeed, though, that's some serious dookie you've just flung at my door, and I'm puzzled (at the same time I'm not) as to why you have. After all I only sought to defend you from Misanthrope's remarks and his own self-confessed penchant to get abusive of others. In the reply folowing yours (following mine to Misanthrope) I was isolating a metaethical issue for conversation's sake- i.e. I ask are the morals of a society correct only insofar as the majority of its people hold it? Are rights and wrongs so relative as some of what you say indirectly imply? Is it really desirable to ascribe the validity of your views on homosexuality on this kind of ad populum appeal? I was only dealing with the interesting implications of a few thoughts that have skirted across this thread. And we can talk about the nature of jail if you wish, but that seems like a seperate issue. How do you think this relates to either the problem of justifying one's opinions as "right or wrong" or the suspension of just that problem for the sake of simplifying conversation? I don't see it as immediately relevant- I already called it a red herring, something that leads the crux of what I was driving at with my previous posts into an abortive tangent. If you disagree, kindly explain and I'll reply later, if only because I respect you.

 

[luke]

Originally posted by Belial
Gang bang, facials, and the like are forms of sexual practices that are gender unspecific. They are methods of having sex that says nothing about a person's gender preference and thus they are not sexual orientations.
For the sake of knowing, the sexual orientations are as follows: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgendered.

Hi Belial, let me introduce myself as one of the many class clowns of the board. Just trying to lighten up the mood a little. If I may be at liberty to do so again, I would like to once more recommend everbody to the www.ratemypoo.com site.:hotjump:

 

[luke]

Originally posted by Satori
Verbal masturbation is alive and well I see.

Can you post a link? I don't think I've seen that one yet..

 

[Lina]

psst, xtokalon, you don't get part 2 of my response until you clean out your mailbox.

ok, well, i can't make my point with the jail thing until you tell me WHY you think some people should be in jail. no matter what you said, it would have something to do with their action being "bad" in some sense of the word. and that would prove my entire point in this thread. if YOU think some people should be in jail, that means you have to admit there are some "negative" actions in this world, however you define "negative." which would contradict what you and misanthrope keep trying to prove.

ugh. let's stop this.

 

[Belial]

Originally posted by luke


Hi Belial, let me introduce myself as one of the many class clowns of the board. Just trying to lighten up the mood a little. If I may be at liberty to do so again, I would like to once more recommend everbody to the www.ratemypoo.com site.:hotjump:

I'll keep an eye out for your posts then

I saw that it was a joke earlier today. I didn't see it when I replied because it was a quarter to 1 AM and I was fuckin exhausted.

 

[Xtokalon]

Originally posted by Lina
psst, xtokalon, you don't get part 2 of my response until you clean out your mailbox.

ok, well, i can't make my point with the jail thing until you tell me WHY you think some people should be in jail. no matter what you said, it would have something to do with their action being "bad" in some sense of the word. and that would prove my entire point in this thread. if YOU think some people should be in jail, that means you have to admit there are some "negative" actions in this world, however you define "negative." which would contradict what you and misanthrope keep trying to prove.

Crucial points one must excogitate on in order to understand the essence of X:

1) Quite bluntly, people are in jail because they have violated laws. Should they be in jail? That's a different issue which complicates our conversation drastically. Should a person be in jail for j-walking? I don't think so. More controversial, for possesion of weed? I don't think so. For murder?-- a universal law- yes. Why? murderers present a clear and present danger to society. Incarceration makes sense.

There's a difference, which is useful to consider here, between saying something is morally wrong, and incarcerating it because it is dangerous. Killing to save lives... morally wrong? maybe but depending. Killing to be viscious for viscious sake? Of course. Killing because one is mentally ill or psychotic? The language of morality ceases to be relevant. --- shit this is getting more complex than I like-- now you know why I chose to dismiss rather than bravely pursue this earlier. So I will abruptly end my line of argument here.

2) Another crucial thing, perhaps more crucial than 1 is that I am not saying what Misanthrope is saying. I do believe in negatives-- Misanthrope is a damn nihilist- no offense buddy - he believes in nothing. I am a moral realist. What does this means? I beleive that moral rights and wrongs and justifications for these do exist. This is quite the contrary from what Misanthrope seems to believe.....

3) How indeed does my post (in reply to Misanthrope) count as a defense of you and not the opposite? Misanthrope was attempting to pick out inconsistencies in your language that is inherent in

i) saying "rights and wrongs don't exist they are only subjective"

with

ii) arguing sincerely- arguing because you feel you are right about something.-- anything of this is sort is a "better than you" attitude *of a kind*.

What he missed is the fact that you were involved in *i* as a way of "simplifying discussion", of suspending just that problematic (-- I should back track and double check words here, but i won't for convenience if you don't mind.) At the same time he became oblivious to his own contradictions- the fact that he seems hateful towards anyone remotely pretending a "better than you attitude" in the process enacting an abusive and more philosophically pernicious better than you attitude. It gets more complicated than this- a bit too much for me to handle at the moment.

Thoughts?