|
Post by Ada on Sept 22, 2008 19:04:06 GMT -5
There he goes again with his unvalidated hypotheses -_-
Bah, Sam, just delete his comments here too.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 23, 2008 4:53:27 GMT -5
Pam,
Ada quoted a small piece from 'Twentieth Century World', that was the author's analyses, and theories, of what happened to symbols and meanings.... to culture, in the 20 century.
It was not, and is not, 'proof', or 'evidence', of anything......and needless to say, is not 'proof', or 'evidence', that indulging in "homosexuality" or "lesbianism" is 'o.k.'!
And why should I apologise! Ada brazenlt stated that culture is but a "means to an end". There are few statements I could imagine, that could reek any more of someone getting very close to being spoiled.
What?.....culture has been developed, all the real work has been done, the effort made..........just so now, some 'elite" people can just become "gay" or "lesbian", break the "fixed boundaries", and cripple culture, feeding off the carcass, until only a dried up husk is left?
'Funny', how you are now asking for reason and logic, whilst also posing that there are "no fixed boundaries", that everything is "in flux", that there is 'no right and wrong', basically.
Don't you realise, that each time you lower the bar, lower the standards, you're pulling apart your own flimsy 'case' as well.
If everything is "in flux", and there are "no fixed boundaries", then surely these very strict, very static, contrived, fabricated boundaries of "same sex", "homo(same)-sexuality", of "no men allowed", or "no women allowed", must also be in flux?
But no, "homosexuality" is deviation from the norm, from the proper, from the model. And this deviation, this perversion, this mutation, this inversion, is never, ever, 'good'.
Nothing is 'in flux', bar people's adherence to proper morality, bar people's being attuned to their conscience.
Symbols are exactly that, yet they symbolise inherent truth, which never, ever, changes.
And, hang on Pam, you went on about, and then Colin, Alexi, and Ada, chorused in about your 'sources'(ie, Ask Men)......but now, men's prostate gland being where it is, is only your theory of why some males MIGHT turn "gay"? So as to be 'comfortable' with better orgasms? If they need to, men can stick their own fingers up there, get their wife or girlfriend to, or get them to stick a vibrator up there. The position of the prostate gland is NO 'reason' for the vanity of "homosexuality"!
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 23, 2008 6:28:09 GMT -5
And you have the nerve Pam, to say anything about inferences!
Thus copying what I have already said about inferences, about allusions, about context, about the wider spectrucm of influence.
Most everything that people say, carries subtexts, alludes to other, unspoken, inferences.
And then you dared to go on later about how you are not, or this is not, a forum where you are pushing "homosexuality"?! Well, if you 'believe' that something should be 'tolerated, 'accepted', 'allowed'. If you consider it more 'reasonable' and 'logical', then you are, most definitely, pushing it !
And, in line with this, with tacit approcal, with complicity, with inferred messages.........if you are 'supporting' the choice of "lesbianism", then you are against men!
The vain, selfish, irresponsible choice of "lesbianism", is patently, and obviously, against men.
Whether consciously or not, whether aware of the larger repercussions......you 'tolerate','accept', and give your tacit approval to "lesbianism"....
Then.........you have sided against men. And, against so much, in the wider scheme of things.
And you further have the audacity to attempt to play me as considering you all to be "robotic"!!??
It is you, Pam, and even more so all these horrendously vain girls such as Samantha and Cara.....who are considering men to be 'robotic'. Turning their backs on us, yet still expecting men to, robotically, be good little automatons, working away at all the hard tasks needed to be done in society.....while they just get "comfortable" with each other. Maybe, they are all hoping that if we are robots, without feelings, it might just salve their conscience a little, for what they do.
We, are not robots though.
We are real.
And, as DEVO sang....."a man's not made of steel....."
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 23, 2008 7:29:03 GMT -5
SKOT.
Kindly quote me on where I stated specifically that there's no fixed boundary. If you don't quote, I don't know which one of my many posts you are referring to.
That being said, it is possible to provide logic, reasoning and reasonability as well as taking into account emotion, compassion and special cases while talking about any topics. The way you go on and on and on and on about heterosexual relationships, is as though you expect holy trumpets to start blaring the moment a guy and a girl get together. I'm simply asking you to open your eyes to the reality of the situation. There's a hell lot of unhappy male-female couples out there. Abusive Spouses, drunkards, infidelity, adultery, addicts etc... I'm just asking you to take different cases into account when you want to promote something.
I'm not pushing for homosexuality. I'm pushing for compassion towards another fellow human being. I simply ask that you do not prosecute them and such. I have repeated this many times, and thus, if you infer something that deviates away from it, without taking other paragraphs and posts into account, then you're obviously blind and short sighted.
In my defense, I inferred that stupidity comment, in combination with your condescending tone, and your "I'm Right because I say I am attitude", which, in anybody's point of view, lends to the inference that you think that we're stupid. It'll be quite hard to infer from my posts that I'm pro-lesbians or anti-men, after saying repeatedly that I want to bring gays into the debate, and that I'm pushing for compassion instead.
Hence, this strengthen my belief that you see what you want, and discards the rest. Then make false assumptions.
Alexi, Ada and Colin NEVER stated the same source I did. I did it, and I dont see why you're pulling them into the equation. That being said, I never meant it as proof of sexuality. It was to PROVE that the prostrate gland is there. It was to substantiate my point, and which since you believe that you have rebutted it, there's still many more for you to rebut.
That being said, I would wish that you stop critising my points before you post any of your own. Its a tad bit hypocritical. Plus I already addressed that whole askmen source thing previously, please read rather than parrot the same points over and over again, and thus, forcing me to parrot as to address your point, all over again >.<
The vain, selfish, irresponsible choice of "lesbianism", is patently, and obviously, against men.
The Choice of Lesbianism, is Pro-women. Its not against men. Just because I'd rather marry a male doesn't make me a man-hater. Just because straight men wants a female doesn't make them hate males. So in what way does loving a female makes them a man-hater? Sorry, I totally fail to see the logic in that.
And you further have the audacity to attempt to play me as considering you all to be "robotic"!!??
You're the one who's trying to typecast us, into a role you want us to me. Lesbians as man-hating evil people (BTW, do you know, Samantha and I have some VERY good male friends? Heck I'd place my life into the hands of some of those male friends) and now, you're trying to act the victim, after I pointed out that you're trying to mould us?
ROFL. So, let me get this straight. You try to put us in a little box, to write Alexi off as a weakling, and me as a lesbian-supporter-male-hater-that-has-been-duped-by-her-friends-and-by-society, and now, you're UPSET with me trying to "play you as" considering us robotic? Wow... Ironic. Really, it is. Just, wow. This is amazing. Nobody else I know would have the gull to accuse me of attempting to typecast YOU as somebody who typecast US. When you obviously do, and you're acting the VICTIM! ROFL.
If anybody, its Samantha that ought to act the victim.
Seriously though, I doubt I have anything much to say anymore. Its just... wow. You attempt to play the victim, and us, the inherently evil people who wrongly accuses the victim. And the roles are actually reversed! You rant and rave abt my askmen 'source', when you don't even provide a source of your own! ROFL. This is classic.
I'll resume debate with you once you provide that intelligent essay, in a nicely structured form, etc. etc. etc. Like I've been asking for days. But till then, you might wanna sort out your thinking, re-read all the posts so far, and prevent yourself from making such a silly mistake.
Regards,
Pam
|
|
|
Post by Czmp on Sept 23, 2008 14:39:36 GMT -5
If it's my birthday today, i would wish for Skot to shut up and die, and also bury all his stupid words with him. Admit it, you're just saying the same old thing over and over again. Nobody is listening, and no one would. So just stop trying to be like a god, and stop trying to act like one. To me and ALL my friends (even straight girls & guys) think you're bored at home and just trying to entertain yourself by arguing with people over this. Get a life man. If you think we're wrong and wadso ever then wad for reply us? when even straight pple thinks that you're just bull shitting. Go get a wife and stop doing these. seriously.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 23, 2008 19:09:37 GMT -5
Pam,
You cheerfully cam to Ada's support, stressing her sources and 'evidence'. And this 'evidence', for what, it's impossible to ascertain, revolved around a short quote from 'Twentieth Century World', which spoke about the breaking of fixed boundaries in cultures.
And, as I mentioned earlier, you go along with here, you 'support' her, then you are giving your comp;icit approval to this horrendous notion.
It's shocking how you'll change tack to suit, say one thing with one breathe, change it with the next.
So, the post I am quoting, of yours Pam, is where you are trumpeting Ada's source, and 'evidence'.
I know all about the things going wrong in what should otherwise be healthy Heterosexual relationships. However, to play with things that way is extremely short sighted on your part Pam. Yes, some people do their Heterosexuality wrong. The model is right though. "Homosexuality" is always wrong, by definition. And, as poor behaviour does take place within Heterosexual relationships, as people do slip and make, often terrible, blunders........how though, does hordes of people, jumping ship like rats, to run off to selfish, "comfortable" "homosexual" activities, actually hel remedy that. If something is going wrong with the building, how does some people actively, and aggresively, digging away at the foundations of the building, help stop the collapse?
It doesn't, Pam.
And to critique the perfection of proper, balanced, harmonious Heterosexual relationships, because some people do it wrong, is akin to criticising all legs, because some get broken.
The things you mentioned, are more bad things that people do wrong. It has nothing to do with the perfect form, the perfect function, the perfect meaning, the perfect source, that the proper Heterosexual relationship meant fro all women and men is.
Once again, do you see the mess you add to as you further try to lower the standards?!
You do, tacitly, push "homosexuality", Pam. With any degree of 'support', or 'tolerance', you push it. Because vanity, wickedness, and arrogance.....will voraciously feed upon any 'tolerance' shown them.
I have absolute compassion for all human beings. That is not meant to include selfish "lifestyles"!
And, 'funny' how no compassion is ever shown to the people whom those becoming "gays" and "lesbians' hurt! No, au contraire, they must "get over it", "get used to it", "deal with it", "tolerate it", or else "F-off la", and variants thereof.
Pam, you are the one 'defending', pushing, showing "compassion" to, what is deviation from the mean, inversion of the complete, perversion of the norm. So the onus is on you to provide reasons. Which you haven't, and truly can't. So I am more than entitled to critique your wafer thin 'sources'!
My God Pam ! Whether you meant it or not, your line about 'seeing what you want', 'discarding all the rest', and 'making false assumptions'........could be the most frighteningly apt description of "lesbianism" that I've ever heard! Of those who indulge in a biased "same sex lifestyle", who only 'see' who they 'comfortably' "want", who casually discard all the "rest", and then make very false assumptions about the "right" they have to do it, and what passes as "reasons" for it!
Pam, stop. You know very well, that with this, being "pro-women", is also, by direct matter of course, anti-men!
Your part about Samantha's male friends, and of course they must robotically "accept" their status as "only friends", just reinforces how insidiously anti-male this attitude is.
You, Pam, have gone along with the notion of the 'little boxes'. Routinely, I have heard comments form people directed to me about this issue, all along the lines of "what's it got to with you/with anyone else.....". Thus attempting to fit human lives into unrelated, disconnected "boxes". I jump out of this "box", I'm the jack-in-the-box, and I'm here to wake you up again to the fact that all life is related, connects, affects, and influences.
Everything I said is right, and you truly know that.
I wonder though, how fleeting, how condescending those 'regards' there of yours, are ?
Czamp ,
Today is my birthday !
And in response to your utter negativity, my birthday wish is for a proper, virtuous, balanced, meaningful, soulful, responsible, true human society !!
The same thing getting said over and over is the "SAME sex" thing, so I must, repeatedly, strive against it.
Clearly some people are listening, you've responded! And a few others!
Oh, and so nicely condescending of you, that with whatever "lifestyle" you are getting into, you still find the time to have some "straight girls & guys" as "friends". You EVEN let "straight girls & guys" still be your 'friend'!
Watch your blasphemy! No-one can be "a god"! There is One God. We, however, can be godly.
Sadly, Czamp, I do feel close to death about this, but until then I will not shut up, and my words are not "stupid".
People still being straight, does not make them automatically 'right' either! They can make errors in judgement as well, and be duped into 'tolerating' the wrong things! I'm not fooled into buying this fabricated division between straight people and "gay" people. We are all people, and all people are created to be, meant to be, straight!
This is not an "argument".
And I am trying to get real life, man!
If I went and "got" a wife, I would most assuredly not be stopping 'these'/this.
Seriously.
SKOT
|
|
|
Post by The One True God on Sept 23, 2008 22:06:51 GMT -5
Skot my son, You have called upon me and I have come. And I find Myself to be disappointed. Did I not call upon My people to treat others as they would wish to be treated? Yet I do not see how you follow My word in this. Remember that only I know all that is good and true, you dare to presume your word is comparable to Mine? Blasphemy! Do not slander My name nor raise yourself to 'godly' until you remember well that only I know all that is true. Instead, for it is upon this day that you were created, look upon all with tolerance and care. Remember My lesson, my son.
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Sept 24, 2008 0:43:36 GMT -5
Happy Birthday SKOT! If it was MY birthday, I won't be spending it online critisizing lesbians, but hey, whatever rocks your boat.
And to critique the perfection of proper, balanced, harmonious Heterosexual relationships, because some people do it wrong, is akin to criticising all legs, because some get broken.
I'm not critisizing the idea of heterosexual relationships. I am, simply, pointing out that the idea is not "perfect", nor will it ever be. Everything is subject to the people involve, and the thing that remains constant ought to be LOVE. Hence, if Somebody loves somebody else in the same gender, they should be treated the same as a guy loving a girl. Easy as that.
And seriously, its ironic, how you keep saying that we're trying to put you in a box, when all you've done, is try to put US in a box. You started it with making broad assumptions based on our age, gender and race, and you continue to do so. And yet you complain? Nothing much I can say to that illogical and unreasonable play-the-victim thing.
You cheerfully cam to Ada's support, stressing her sources and 'evidence'. And this 'evidence', for what, it's impossible to ascertain, revolved around a short quote from 'Twentieth Century World', which spoke about the breaking of fixed boundaries in cultures.
Until you post sources of your own, you are henceforth not allowed to make any other waves at other people's sources ^^. Really, its getting annoying. And when I saw quote, I mean what I do to you. Copy part of the post, make it italic, and respond to it. OMG, please tell me you know what QUOTING is! Its one of the most important part of a good essay. The quote >.<. Without quoting evidence and points to rebut, you can't get a good mark >.<.
Anyways, SKOT, you're just parrotting the same stuff. Its getting boring. Please start a new angle. Calling me short sighted won't work, and calling me flippant and indecisive in my words also won't work, without quoting EXACTLY where I went wrong, and homing on it.
There, gave you tips on how to counter my points properly. I'm still waiting for that long essay though, Can you stop avoiding that fact? Or are you just unable to provide a long essay of a proper structure with points in a coherent manner?
Regards,
Pammy
|
|
|
Post by Ada on Sept 24, 2008 11:40:22 GMT -5
Do you have a Master's in Human Sexuality, Skot? Do you have a PhD in Anthropology, Skot? Did you ever get out of your mother's basement and actually school yourself in the things you spout, or are you just pulling them out of your ass?
Oh, I guess you ARE just pulling them out of your ass. No MA or PhD I know types like a 14-year-old kid with ADD, horrible grammar, even worse thesis construction, and an inferiority complex.
If you know fuck-nothing about sexuality, shut the fuck up.
And, if you apply the same thing to me? Don't worry! I've taken both Cultural Anthropology, Primate Anthropology, as well as Human Sexuality and Women's Studies classes. And guess what? All my teachers say GAY IS OKAY.
So fuck off already.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 25, 2008 2:28:27 GMT -5
So, again Ada, a variant on "F-off" is meant to suffice for anything real.
So, your 'studying' some things, yet are clearly not learning much.
Your teachers 'said' that ""gay is okay""?! Your 'teachers' are wrong.
Let's see what you're studying.....
"Women's studies" - well, cross that off the list first, throw that straight in in the bin. You're studying your own gender?, golly, if there was a "white person's studies" would it be seen as being so good? "Women's studies", which is aligned with other weak units/courses such as "gender studies" always boil down basically to extremes of feminism, basically whittle things down to "male = bad, female = good", and really wind up as being little more than recruitment drives for "lesbianism".
It's shocking that society has gotten to such a point of indecision, of vagueness, of such a lack of certainty in even the most basically principles, that people actually have to 'study' gender.
Terrible too, that your "women's studies" actually fails to teach/remind you of what it actually is to be a woman!
I do study Anthroplogy by the way! And Sociology.
What is a Master's in Human Sexuality? And how could it prove that sexual perversion is "okay" anyway? Just studying human sexuality doesn't actually make everything that humans do 'sexually' "o.k."!
We could study "bestiality", it happens, people do it. It's never right though!
We can study "incest".....it's never "okay".
A medical student studies many diseases and afflictions, it does not mean that they are "okay", they study them so as to treat and cure them.
Like wise, Anthropology, the 'study of people'. Studying people, does NOT make everything that people do "okay".
You, Ada, clearly have not studied, nor understand, Sexuality....if you vainly imagine that people invertedly having "sex" with their own gender is "okay" !
Before any pleasure is taken into consideration, sexual reproduction is the key issue. Anything which contrivines this is is, by definition, a perversion!!
Studying 'sexual' perversion, does NOT make the perversion "okay".
Sexuality, without biology, and without spirit, can lead to terrible things.
You may study things Ada, but you clearly as yet do not apply anything. The study, and the application thereof simply must go hand in hand.
Nothing in Cultural Anthropology makes sexual perversion "okay". Nothing to be studied in Cultural Anthropology makes sexism, gender supremacism, arrogance, vanity, elitism and irresponsibility "okay".
There is no such thing as Primate Anthroplogy. Primates, apes, though to some degree similar to human beings, are not human beings. Anthroplogy is the study of humanity.
Just 'knowing' about the things people do in the guise of "sexuality" does not actually make them "okay" Ada.
There are a lot of "sexual" things that I know about Ada, and a lot of them are not "okay".
Thank God I can still write, talk, think, and feel like a 14 year old! Thank God I can still hark back to that classic 14 year old Scott! Yes, clearly you grow and learn, and obviously I am who and where I am, and have learned a lot, but that pure spirit is vital. Funny enough, I was talking with a woman I know today about birthdays, age, and other things. And we both agreed how wonderful it is to have a direct line to that amazing, brilliant, youthful spirit......and how so many people throw it away, actually try to kill it!
So, like I say Ada, "Women's Studies", what a waste of time, and with a really malicious agenda to boot. That people have become so unsure of gender as to actually have to study themselves.....but with a dose of poisonous supremacy thrown in....not good. And your teachers are completely wrong about the vain choice of "gay" being "okay". Many academics now are corrupted by liberal , politically correct dogma.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 25, 2008 2:33:03 GMT -5
And there is a post there from one true blasphemer.
Wake up.
I do treat others as I wish to be treated!
If I'm doing something wrong, if I'm saying something wrong, then I wish to be told!
If I'm making a grave, and dangerous, error, I wish to be warned!
God calls upon some patience with sinners, but not tacit approval, not being walked over, not muted "tolerance".
I don't 'tolerate' a thing.
I do care , deeply.
|
|
|
Post by Ada on Sept 25, 2008 3:03:19 GMT -5
Nothing in Cultural Anthropology makes sexual perversion "okay". Nothing to be studied in Cultural Anthropology makes sexism, gender supremacism, arrogance, vanity, elitism and irresponsibility "okay".
There is no such thing as Primate Anthroplogy. Primates, apes, though to some degree similar to human beings, are not human beings. Anthroplogy is the study of humanity.
HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by Me the Nerd on Sept 25, 2008 8:22:21 GMT -5
Skot, I only have one question upon reading ALL the posts (as you don't seem to like doing): Did God write the book you reference? (Assuming that it's the Qur'an) or did men?
Secondly, no primate anthropology? Look on Google for someone's sake, the first thing you'll find is a reference to a career in anthropology being Primate Anthropology.
|
|
|
Post by Me the Nerd on Sept 25, 2008 11:06:01 GMT -5
Sorry for the double-post, just thought of something. Skot, you have a brain, no doubt, now would you by any chance like to use it? The brain and the mind are wonderful things, capable of leaps of logic or of faith. Now, we repeatedly have expressed interest in hearing a LOGICAL response from you rather than a faith-filled one in which you say "It is wrong because the Qur'an says it's wrong". Now I'm not blasting it, but if I were to apply the same logic without consulting any of the facts and while generalizing for all people like you, I would have to say, as an American, that all Muslims are terrorists because they're the ones who advocated 9/11 that killed so many people and advocate the terrorism in Iraq. As you quote the Qur'an, which is the Islamic holy text, that would thus make you a terrorist and a threat to the free people of the world. Now, I don't want to go along with that train of thought because I know people are different than that and their religion shouldn't matter in that case. But if you want to generalize that all homosexuality is wrong WITHOUT providing factual, objective proof other than the Qur'an to support your point, I might as well just label you a terrorist and be done with it. Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by SKOT on Sept 26, 2008 4:42:28 GMT -5
What are you laughing at Ada ?
All those words of mine that you quoted, and all the rest, firmly put all of your half baked drivel in it's place.
And, no, 'Me the nerd', that first post you see once you've googled the oxymoron 'primate Anthroplogy" is about Primatology. It's a piece about a young woman who came to working with primates via Anthropology.
As I have already said.....Anthro- Pology, is the study of humanity.
Yes, God did write the Qu'ran. God wrote all the holy scriptures, and they were conveyed through elevated human mouthpieces......prophets and messengers.
Yes, I've been called "terrorist" recently. I've been erroneously called a lot of less than savoury things.
Listen Me, I'm positive that you yourself know how wrong you are in linking the Qu'ran, Islam, me....and whatever took place on 9/11 and 'terrorism'.
The Qu'ran is the most true source, it is at the highest level, and it speaks directly to your soul, heart, conscience and reason!
Everything else attests to that.
And, as I've said, read any other religious/spiritual text, read any textbook on biology, remember essential social courtesies, all truth testifies that the vulgar conceit of "homo-sexuality" is wrong!
Be careful with your talk of 'choice', Me.
All choices have a result, and it's either a reward, or a consequence.
SKOT
|
|