Homosexuality

[RookParliament]

You're still asking how genius IQ, physical fitness and a lack of medical problems are characteristics congruent with leadership? Are you all daft or something?

Ahem... Great leaders have come and gone who do not necesserly match or need to match those characteristics. In fact many holders of genius level IQ are completely anti-social and would not be able to handle a leadership role. FDR( whether you agree with his policies or not) was stricken with polio and couldn't walk without help.

Those characteristics may help you if you already have leadership capabilites, but they don't guarantee you leadership capabilities, or even the ability to effectively map out a strategy of government.

 

[RookParliament]

You're still asking how genius IQ, physical fitness and a lack of medical problems are characteristics congruent with leadership? Are you all daft or something?

Also though this has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument, I don't believe a word he writes. I've seen too many people claim genius IQ's on message boards to actually believe another one.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Also though this has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument, I don't believe a word he writes. I've seen too many people claim genius IQ's on message boards to actually believe another one.

Precisely why this particular line of discussion's not going to go anywhere.

Presuming that he is telling the truth, the characteristics mentioned are generally positive ones, undisputably. I didn't claim that they were all that's needed, or that they were necessarily needed at all, but they're certainly congruent generally speaking.

 

[RookParliament]

Precisely why this particular line of discussion's not going to go anywhere.

Presuming that he is telling the truth, the characteristics mentioned are generally positive ones, undisputably. I didn't claim that they were all that's needed, or that they were necessarily needed at all, but they're certainly congruent generally speaking.

Got what you were saying and you're right on this.

Maybe it was just the tone of his writing that irked me to actually care about his claims.

 

[Blaphbee]

Is it possible for anyone on the emotional side of the camps-at-war here to argue from a non-humanist viewpoint?

"Who has the right? Who has the right?" Rights are a human construct. Reality has been there well before we arrived on the scene, functioning quite capably without us getting in the way trying to impose "rights" where none exist.

We're all here, living on earth, imbued with life. I mean this in the sense of the trillions of species that share the planet, not limited to humanity. This planet functions as an ecosystem, and we within it function as one complex macro-organism, not as a bunch of disconnected fragments all screaming for "the right of the individual to survive, when that individual makes choices which have disastrous repercussions on the framework of the whole organism". Some people have the capability to realize that their choices affect the world in a way which doesn't always manifest itself immediately; these same people are more likely to live in harmony with nature and the laws which govern nature, instead of trying to fit everyone into a slowly suffocating world that can't fit us all in without reducing the quality of life for everyone human, and destroying the ability for those other trillion species I was talking about earlier (I'll forgive you for forgetting about them; I know that self-image maintenance is a hard mindset to break out of) to self-govern their own futures, let alone to be able to survive, or do they not have "rights" either?

Are we simply going to keep around defectives because you people are too crippled by your own death-fear to make some hard choices so that we can all live in a better future? It doesn't matter if you prefer this choice; we have too many people as it is (7 billion in a world that can sensibly hold 500 million), and we can stand to lose the useless detriments. Starting with the defectives (and I as well as others in this thread have provided many different yardsticks of measurement so as to calculate who fits into this mold, and the ones advocating this approach have never once tried to step outside of such a consideration - if they realize what the problems are, and they don't possess or embody these problems, and willingly work against these problems, then it's pretty safe to say that they aren't part of the problem) seems like common sense to me.

Feel free to begin bleating your self-referential excuses anytime. You're only looking like bigger idiots.

By the way, RookP, context is everything when you raise sources for your argument. FDR was elected in by a shit-stupid democracy which rewards a participant's ability to effectively win a popularity contest, not because the people can recognize what makes an effective leader that will care for the country's long-term future, and not political games. The fact that he had polio does not diffuse or debunk the argument, nor will the whole Stephen Hawking argument I'm sure some wit will inevitably raise. Producing geniuses isn't the sole reason for eugenics - making the entire system evolutionarily better than the incarnation that came before it is the goal.

Besides, who the fuck wants to rule the world, and when was that non sequiter raised, Barking Pumpkin?

 

[Blaphbee]

So again, all you raise is preferential arguments?

Get the fuck out of this thread Rook.

 

[RookParliament]

So again, all you raise is preferential arguments?

Get the fuck out of this thread Rook.

Again I can only chuckle. I'll drink a beer for you

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'm sure Blaphbee can only chuckle at the way you dance away from every post you can't counter by focusing on the person expressing ideas instead of the ideas themselves.

 

[RookParliament]

Here I'll try to be serious for a second. What is your definition of defective?

If homosexual marriage can serve a purpose which helps society, by adopting children and furthering their chances of being productive member's of our society, by providing a stable financial and emotional background, how is that defective?

If homsexuality is evolutionary defective why is it still around? Perhaps it serves a purpose, or is completely neutral in not damaging to themselves or any society?

Seriousness aside, you make me laugh.

 

[RookParliament]

I'm sure Blaphbee can only chuckle at the way you dance away from every post you can't counter by focusing on the person expressing ideas instead of the ideas themselves.

That is not true. I was having fun poking at the arrogance of Laerae, but I did follow it up with a post as to why what I wrote about homosexuality was valid. The IQ thing was BS but I had some fun typing and posting it. Oh well

 

[Blaphbee]

Nothing's more arrgoant than thinking you're so far above a serious conversation that you can participate in it while being deliberately flip and/or drunk. Who the fuck honestly takes you seriously, except for your equally-deluded sympathizers?

What the fuck do you think "defective" means? You're griping about intelligence, and you have the gall to ask a question like that?

Evolution isn't a disease or a computer; you can't cure or "fix" it, unless of course you're a Jew, in which case you believe that such thinking and subsequent behaviour is your prime directive in life. As such, mutations and abberations will continue to exist and occur throughout our future. The best thing we can do is not focus on trying to halt everyone's progress so that the retard can catch up to the rest of us.

When you're talking about the concepts of evolution and society, realize that one is a naturally occurring process that has no conscious will directing it, whereas the other has an immediate controlling instinct created by imperfect humans. Nothing humanity has ever created can rival the efficiency and beauty of a natural forest's ecosystem; that sort of thing makes me think that maybe we should look to nature to see how things should be working, instead of dreaming up fictions where everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Tell me what is damaging about homosexuality to society, please. You pointed out that the world can sensibly hold 500 million people, so are we to wipe out all the gay people to make room for more people who will produce more people?

 

[Blaphbee]

No, you're misunderstanding this.

A better, smarter, long-term-visionary group of humans will not senselessly overpopulate like the last failed bunch of retards did. That same failed group thought that having homosexuals raising children was somehow beneficial for the continuation and inherent function of the natural world, instead of recognizing that they were only furthering the objectives of blindsided liberals the world over, who want to see human life overtake everything that is beautiful in the natural world by crowding out its living space, and imposing bureacratic "rights" onto everything so that none of the precious "individuals" we have feel left out.

To echo a sentiment found elsewhere, fuck that.

 

[RookParliament]

Nothing's more arrgoant than thinking you're so far above a serious conversation that you can participate in it while being deliberately flip and/or drunk. Who the fuck honestly takes you seriously, except for your equally-deluded sympathizers?

What the fuck do you think "defective" means? You're griping about intelligence, and you have the gall to ask a question like that?

Evolution isn't a disease or a computer; you can't cure or "fix" it, unless of course you're a Jew, in which case you believe that such thinking and subsequent behaviour is your prime directive in life. As such, mutations and abberations will continue to exist and occur throughout our future. The best thing we can do is not focus on trying to halt everyone's progress so that the retard can catch up to the rest of us.

When you're talking about the concepts of evolution and society, realize that one is a naturally occurring process that has no conscious will directing it, whereas the other has an immediate controlling instinct created by imperfect humans. Nothing humanity has ever created can rival the efficiency and beauty of a natural forest's ecosystem; that sort of thing makes me think that maybe we should look to nature to see how things should be working, instead of dreaming up fictions where everyone lives happily ever after.

Don't try to explain evolution to me. I understand it as well if not better than you. Read some Dawkins and get back to me.
I was trying to be serious, and I noticed that Laerae had called me a dipshit in his post. Since I was drunk at the time I posted my little laughter and... and you know what. I don't think I will continue to explain myself to you.

I don't think I have any sympathizers.

 

[Dushan S]

You're still asking how genius IQ, physical fitness and a lack of medical problems are characteristics congruent with leadership? Are you all daft or something?

Actually, I would never have trust in such a leader, and I think most of people would not too, except in extreme conditions, like in Germany after WW I.
Most of people (at least the sane ones) have some doubts and insecurities about themselves. They can sometimes identify with someone apparently all-perfect, but they can also be repulsive towards such a leader, because it makes them feel bed, they want leader that will be human and not so perfect, someone that they can understand and relate to.
From a psychological view, someone can have high IQ, physical fitness and lack of med problems and be ignorant idiot, selfish scum, moron you would not spend 5 minutes listening to, or just simply mentally unbalanced.

Also someone can have high IQ, ph fitness, no med problems, and homosexual too, and still be a greatest leader that world has ever seen. Now that would be funny.

As far as communication and sharing thoughts goes, if someone starts to wave with his IQ or any other kind of ability as an argument in conversation usually I don't take him for serious and give him no more attention. It is so lame; if someone is great and capable person, it is always obvious, no need to prove those things.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Most of people (at least the sane ones) have some doubts and insecurities about themselves. They can sometimes identify with someone apparently all-perfect, but they can also be repulsive towards such a leader, because it makes them feel bed, they want leader that will be human and not so perfect, someone that they can understand and relate to.

Well, I was talking about a leader who would effectively install healthy values to replace the deadly ones and other such things, not one who's good at making pathetic, envious losers feel less threatened by not possessing any superior traits, but hey, if that's what keeps the masses under control, I suppose we can find somebody so intelligent that they can pretend to be weak to the masses whilst simultaneously making things work better.

From a psychological view, someone can have high IQ, physical fitness and lack of med problems and be ignorant idiot, selfish scum, moron you would not spend 5 minutes listening to, or just simply mentally unbalanced.

Also someone can have high IQ, ph fitness, no med problems, and homosexual too, and still be a greatest leader that world has ever seen. Now that would be funny.

At the end of the day, there are always going to be exceptions to absolutely everything, but that's hardly the point. If truly necessary, exceptions can be made. But as Blaphbee already stated, the population needs severely culling anyway, and we may as well kill off the people who deviate from what is deemed natural/capable before anybody else.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Actually, I would never have trust in such a leader, and I think most of people would not too, except in extreme conditions, like in Germany after WW I.
Most of people (at least the sane ones) have some doubts and insecurities about themselves. They can sometimes identify with someone apparently all-perfect, but they can also be repulsive towards such a leader, because it makes them feel bed, they want leader that will be human and not so perfect, someone that they can understand and relate to.
From a psychological view, someone can have high IQ, physical fitness and lack of med problems and be ignorant idiot, selfish scum, moron you would not spend 5 minutes listening to, or just simply mentally unbalanced.

Also someone can have high IQ, ph fitness, no med problems, and homosexual too, and still be a greatest leader that world has ever seen. Now that would be funny.

As far as communication and sharing thoughts goes, if someone starts to wave with his IQ or any other kind of ability as an argument in conversation usually I don't take him for serious and give him no more attention. It is so lame; if someone is great and capable person, it is always obvious, no need to prove those things.

what i was trying to say before, but much better stated. ----^

 

[speed]

Well you have Alexander the Great--he was obviosly homosexual and a great leader. I am sure a number of the royals of the past have been queer as a three dollar bill. Today however, gays are seen as too weak and effeminate to become a leader. People would prefer a lecherous alcoholic to a gay man. Its our cultural definition of gayness. Like in Greece and Rome 2,000 years ago, or even a few hundred years ago, such cultural sensibilities were not as strong.

 

[G-Master]

The warriors of Sparta, in order to strengthen their camaraderie, would engage in homosexual activities with one another before battle. Typically, they had a wife and children waiting for them at home, but they believed that showing intimacy to one another before battle would tighten their bonds among each other. Although I have no doubt that there were quite a few that carried those relationships beyond battle.

Spartans were, and still are hailed as the greatest warriors in history. And the simple point is: They still, even through homosexual activities, maintained an air of nobility and manliness about them. I can't say that for the majority of morons prancing the streets these days.

 

[Dushan S]

Well, I was talking about a leader who would effectively install healthy values to replace the deadly ones and other such things, not one who's good at making pathetic, envious losers feel less threatened by not possessing any superior traits, but hey, if that's what keeps the masses under control, I suppose we can find somebody so intelligent that they can pretend to be weak to the masses whilst simultaneously making things work better.

...And I was talking about fact that people can love and hate for the same reason, so you can't make everyone like you. More the extreme traits of someone’s character are, the more people will react with sympathy or with hate.
Again, being super human does not mean that you can't be wrong, actually it can make you go very wrong. Most of the leaders that were very sure about their superiority have caused destruction and death and finally led their own people to disaster.

what i was trying to say before, but much better stated.

Well, I have read your posts before posting mine, I admit. If you notice some letters missing in them, maybe that was me borrowing ideas.
Just kidding, naturally, thanks. :wink:

Well you have Alexander the Great--he was obviously homosexual and a great leader. I am sure a number of the royals of the past have been queer as a three dollar bill. Today however, gays are seen as too weak and effeminate to become a leader. People would prefer a lecherous alcoholic to a gay man. Its our cultural definition of gayness. Like in Greece and Rome 2,000 years ago, or even a few hundred years ago, such cultural sensibilities were not as strong.

Not trying to be pro or against homosexuality, but fact is , statistically, that gay people seem to be more artistically talented than heterosexual. So are they inferior?
Btw, when talking about the Alexander, it seems that recent movie was really pushing his homosexual side. We don't have any clear information about all this historically, and it is obvious that in old age, having bisexual preferences was not against manhood, and does not means that Alexander was by character similar to homosexual psychological portrait as we know it today.
Off topic, but Greeks have managed to change facts about him to make him as Greek and Hellenistic as they could, so it is hard to rely to information’s from that source.