T
train
Guest
Genocide.. right?...
D
DÛke
Guest
...
No train. Not at all. That's what philosophy is for.
No train. Not at all. That's what philosophy is for.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
Yes it does make sense.
And for the gay people I know, who are morally and ethically fairly conscientious, as well as the faithful people I know, this guidance is largely positive, and while allowing guilt, does not include self hatred. There is also no reason for it to exist in nature; it couldn't possibly help with procreation or survival.
So (assuming we're looking at it this way) this self hatred stems from societal factors directed inwards, or genetic issues, or a clash between different values. Genetic issues passed onto an individual can not be changed very easily. So I think every homosexual (except a very lucky one with parents open to their children being gay) has at some point come to distinguish between the voice of society and the voice of God, which they decide doesn't condemn homosexuality.
That's because they don't want to support it and get the KWEH beaten out of them if it doesn't go through (and it won't, unfortunately).
Well, I'm going to settle this religious portion of this debate once and for all:
I just spoke to god and she said "Being gay's okay. It's all part of who you are. Be who you want and don't prevent anyone else from being themselves"
Problem solved.
-Ferret
"You can deny that I spoke to Her, but then I'll just deny that you know what's going on inside Her head as well..."
I just spoke to god and she said "Being gay's okay. It's all part of who you are. Be who you want and don't prevent anyone else from being themselves"
Problem solved.
-Ferret
"You can deny that I spoke to Her, but then I'll just deny that you know what's going on inside Her head as well..."
D
DÛke
Guest
...
...just replace every Eric with Ferret and you have the entire self-deception of "divine" dirtiness exposed, again.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
But jeez... some people just don't get it.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Lotus Mox gets part of it. Could it be something with you? Let's consider the "maybe" of it.
Lotus Mox gets part of it. Could it be something with you? Let's consider the "maybe" of it.
No, I think he gets it fine. I get it fine. I'm choosing not argue most of this because to object to others is to object to yourself.
I agree that each person's view of The Divine is nothing more than a re-definition of one's personal view. As long as it stays that way it's okay. What I have problems with is when someone believes that other's should conform to their own personal view and go out of their way to belittle others' views just because they don't match their own perfectly...
-Ferret
"reach out and touch base"
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Which is what you're doing when you're telling them to accept you for "who you are."
Which is what you're doing when you're telling them to accept you for "who you are."
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
There are too many people. That's all I have to say that's constructive on that subject.
Spiderman: Reproduction happens. But despite my previous assertion in this post it does not always happen. Certain people have sex with certain people for reasons and produce children sometimes.
Now, someone like... oh, Howard Stern, or a basketball star, or Jimi Hendrix, wouldn't necessarily have been able to have lots of sex in the 16th century. True, they might be dead sexy, but not for the same reasons, and more importantly, not because of their depravity (as far as natural order or whatever is concerned). I am sure there were people in those days who enjoyed that, but not many. The fittest individual for lots of sex, and thus lots of children to carry genes, was probably a king, who didn't necessarily like sex with animals or collectivism or what have you.
Nowadays the perception of someone ruled by desire for meaningless strange entertainment to engage in actively (not passively like a nerd like me, but I digress) is much more attractive. This entertainment might be peace protest; or rock and roll music; or wrestling; or kayaking; or anal sex.
These things are all "extreme!!!!!!! (burn little bic lighter, burn)" in some stupid way or another. Don't get me wrong, I like yelling, peace, war, boats and music, and anal sex is OK with me. But it's still all pretty stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, that's who is becoming more and more attractive in our day. Now decency as a person is undermined to the point where you can't tell who is and isn't a "good" person by most standards; the people who are well off enough to care about morals and intellect mostly don't; and the attractive are the ones who are swept up in something but still look legitimate otherwise.
These people are getting laid/laying more, passing their genes on. It's a trend.
This has been a (hopefully entertaining) CLIFF'S NOTES presentation of everything Dukey has said on this thread that Spiderman doesn't get.
Spiderman: Reproduction happens. But despite my previous assertion in this post it does not always happen. Certain people have sex with certain people for reasons and produce children sometimes.
Now, someone like... oh, Howard Stern, or a basketball star, or Jimi Hendrix, wouldn't necessarily have been able to have lots of sex in the 16th century. True, they might be dead sexy, but not for the same reasons, and more importantly, not because of their depravity (as far as natural order or whatever is concerned). I am sure there were people in those days who enjoyed that, but not many. The fittest individual for lots of sex, and thus lots of children to carry genes, was probably a king, who didn't necessarily like sex with animals or collectivism or what have you.
Nowadays the perception of someone ruled by desire for meaningless strange entertainment to engage in actively (not passively like a nerd like me, but I digress) is much more attractive. This entertainment might be peace protest; or rock and roll music; or wrestling; or kayaking; or anal sex.
These things are all "extreme!!!!!!! (burn little bic lighter, burn)" in some stupid way or another. Don't get me wrong, I like yelling, peace, war, boats and music, and anal sex is OK with me. But it's still all pretty stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, that's who is becoming more and more attractive in our day. Now decency as a person is undermined to the point where you can't tell who is and isn't a "good" person by most standards; the people who are well off enough to care about morals and intellect mostly don't; and the attractive are the ones who are swept up in something but still look legitimate otherwise.
These people are getting laid/laying more, passing their genes on. It's a trend.
That is natural selection folks. Thank you Darwin.
This has been a (hopefully entertaining) CLIFF'S NOTES presentation of everything Dukey has said on this thread that Spiderman doesn't get.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
...I make another post.
My take on the divine, now that my belief in a cool, awesome afterlife of tubular!ness is subsiding, is that life is what's divine, even though I have pointless emotions and bodily imperfections. Life is interesting and entertaining and humorous and amusing and hard as the blanched fires of hell to deal with. That's the gig so to speak.
Nothing tells me anything but me and I don't mind, I'm enjoying this. There are times (like tomorrow for all I know) when I don't enjoy life but this right now isn't one of them, I guess. I am a smug sonovabitch sometimes.
When I was younger it was better to have a crutch of the sacred than it is for me now. 'Tis a very ornate and exquisite crutch, to be sure. I will take it up later surely, after the energy of youth fades. (At 16 I'm probably the youngest person discussing this topic here now.) But right now I have a fusion of my sense of the sacred and my desire to go do something I enjoy, which is really my base hedonism. For me this pleasure involves treating my intellect like a pet; giving it little sinecures to perform and puzzles to solve in exchange for food. There's enough of them to last a couple of decades before I become a drunk heroin addict (perhaps with money).
But being young I don't care. Yet.
Anyway, I look at the entire panoply of human existence as being alright for a quick fix until I find something better. Homosexuality has no particular downsides for me.
So much for changing the tone...
My take on the divine, now that my belief in a cool, awesome afterlife of tubular!ness is subsiding, is that life is what's divine, even though I have pointless emotions and bodily imperfections. Life is interesting and entertaining and humorous and amusing and hard as the blanched fires of hell to deal with. That's the gig so to speak.
Nothing tells me anything but me and I don't mind, I'm enjoying this. There are times (like tomorrow for all I know) when I don't enjoy life but this right now isn't one of them, I guess. I am a smug sonovabitch sometimes.
When I was younger it was better to have a crutch of the sacred than it is for me now. 'Tis a very ornate and exquisite crutch, to be sure. I will take it up later surely, after the energy of youth fades. (At 16 I'm probably the youngest person discussing this topic here now.) But right now I have a fusion of my sense of the sacred and my desire to go do something I enjoy, which is really my base hedonism. For me this pleasure involves treating my intellect like a pet; giving it little sinecures to perform and puzzles to solve in exchange for food. There's enough of them to last a couple of decades before I become a drunk heroin addict (perhaps with money).
But being young I don't care. Yet.
Anyway, I look at the entire panoply of human existence as being alright for a quick fix until I find something better. Homosexuality has no particular downsides for me.
So much for changing the tone...
B
Bob
Guest
Let me just say that I have nothing against gay people at all and CT and Ferret are still great people.
But, I thought Ferret was married?
But, I thought Ferret was married?
T
train
Guest
Bob - Separation was mentioned previously by Ferret... He also mentioned that this was just discovered(to self) recently...
Either way - they don't want bad service -
"they want us to be happy so the food is always hot, and drinks always filled..."
The divine, or god, or she-god, whomever it is, only wants one thing right - us to serve them... isn't that why there are divine "rules"...
Either way - they don't want bad service -
"they want us to be happy so the food is always hot, and drinks always filled..."
E
EricBess
Guest
I started a response earlier, but my computer messed up, so it never got sent. It's been long enough that I don't feel like recreating the entire post, but I'll touch on the highlights of what I was trying to say.
Duke, no offence was taken. On many points, we actually see eye to eye on the basics, but with different interpretations. Am I trying to become something I'm not? Certainly. I'm striving to become something that I want to be. You call this "supressing" my nature, I call it "controlling" it. "The flesh", as it were, makes us creatures of instinct. The question is whether we become slaves to instinct or whether we rise above this and learn to control our bodies.
Take an alcoholic, for example. So many people drink and would claim that it is their right and they are free to do so. Sure, but if that line gets crossed, there is suddenly no freedom. They are now held prisoner by their habit. Their body demands and at that point, it is very difficult to overcome because they have fallen into a trap. I just had a friend who in all likelyhood committed suicide because he couldn't overcome his alcoholism and giving into it was messing up his life.
So, I agree with you that "nature" would dictate certain behaviors, but what sets us apart from the dogs is the ability to control "natural" impulses. And I'm not saying that the natural instincts are bad. Quite the contrary, they are necessary. But there is a natural instict to procreate and I don't think anyone would argue that we should go out and start forcing ourselves on everyone we see who brings up such desires in us. At least, I hope no one would argue that...
Anyway, about your book, Duke, based on what you have told me about it, I really don't think that it's a book I would feel comfortable reading. I know, that probably sounds like a cop-out, but the fact of the matter is that I don't want to fill my mind with what I would probably consider "filth". Much the same way that I would not drink a beer, even if I was with a bunch of friends that asked me to. I don't know the contents of the book, and if you honestly feel that I would not consider it to be filthy and pornographic, then let me know and maybe I'll look it up, but from what you have said, I don't think I need such imagry. But be aware that I do not take your offer lightly. I really do appreciate it.
Duke, no offence was taken. On many points, we actually see eye to eye on the basics, but with different interpretations. Am I trying to become something I'm not? Certainly. I'm striving to become something that I want to be. You call this "supressing" my nature, I call it "controlling" it. "The flesh", as it were, makes us creatures of instinct. The question is whether we become slaves to instinct or whether we rise above this and learn to control our bodies.
Take an alcoholic, for example. So many people drink and would claim that it is their right and they are free to do so. Sure, but if that line gets crossed, there is suddenly no freedom. They are now held prisoner by their habit. Their body demands and at that point, it is very difficult to overcome because they have fallen into a trap. I just had a friend who in all likelyhood committed suicide because he couldn't overcome his alcoholism and giving into it was messing up his life.
So, I agree with you that "nature" would dictate certain behaviors, but what sets us apart from the dogs is the ability to control "natural" impulses. And I'm not saying that the natural instincts are bad. Quite the contrary, they are necessary. But there is a natural instict to procreate and I don't think anyone would argue that we should go out and start forcing ourselves on everyone we see who brings up such desires in us. At least, I hope no one would argue that...
Anyway, about your book, Duke, based on what you have told me about it, I really don't think that it's a book I would feel comfortable reading. I know, that probably sounds like a cop-out, but the fact of the matter is that I don't want to fill my mind with what I would probably consider "filth". Much the same way that I would not drink a beer, even if I was with a bunch of friends that asked me to. I don't know the contents of the book, and if you honestly feel that I would not consider it to be filthy and pornographic, then let me know and maybe I'll look it up, but from what you have said, I don't think I need such imagry. But be aware that I do not take your offer lightly. I really do appreciate it.
E
EricBess
Guest
My wife located an interesting article about this school. You can find it here. As I read this, my first thoughts were that this was basically some of the points that I have already tried to make - about youth not being mature enough, and so forth, so I didn't think it would really make any difference to this conversation. However, the interesting thing is that Tammy Bruce, the author of the book this was extracted from is a self-proclaimed lesbian.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Eric, Eric, Eric...
Why are so you quick to make an assumption as ancient and prejudicial as "controlling one's nature"? <shakes head> When do you realize that it is your instincts that are telling you to act and when it is your so-called "reason," you're "divine" and controlling nature? My friend...your reason, your control, your thought of abstaining and restraining, your proclaimed divinity is once again your instincts!
Your instincts tell you sexually enjoy the company of a man. When you decide to withhold such a desire, you believe it to be your "higher nature" which has enabled you to think it through? No - it's your nature once again, your very instincts once again, which made you withhold the desire. It is a desire once again that made you remove yourself from following the other desire - it is not "reason" that helped you.
What belongs to your nature? Your instincts. Everything you do is done out of desire. What you call "reason" and "control" is merely the bridge between your desire and your goal, and nothing more.
What separates us from animals? That we have the capacity to create further than any animal on Earth. What else that separates us from our animals? Here it is: every once in a while, noble men are born. Their instincts are what you only strive to emulate, their being is what you only attempt at being, their morals, spirituality, charm, and reverence, and should I even say "faith," is only something that you know through society, schools of thought, teachings, and so on. What you posses, Eric, you do not posses by heart, your nature is not noble. Hence you only attempt at becoming noble.
Don't speak to me of your "reason," especially of your "higher reason." No...rather speak to me about your desire and your instincts - they are all there is. Every action you have withheld, every desire, every instinct you believe you are "controlling," Eric, is on the contrary being influenced by a greater desire of yours. Desire, and not reason. Instincts, not control. Subjectivity, no objectivity. Ego, and nothing more. All your actions belong to your desires once again, and they are as immediate responses based on your very natural instincts. At the moment of decision, it is another instinct with its own desire that overcomes your immediate instincts for that particular moment. You are internally a battle of desires: each lead by an instinct, and each instinct strives to dominate and overpower the other. “Control” is absent, and will always be, unless you posses the instinct of control, unless your nature itself is of a commanding one. But it is not, hence you are a Christian, hence you need Christianity to supplement for what you certainly lack, and nevertheless, will always lack: control, restraint, faith, command, amongst other things. You are doomed by the fatality of your nature to be who your nature endows, and you will not overcome what you are and your being – you will only reformulate all that you “suppress” into energy to empower what you already posses of your instincts. And your nature does not posses a controlling instinct, you are not of the faithful type, you are as you claim to be of the “sinful” type who wants to “cleanse” themselves. Filth is filth, and he who confesses to being sinful – as in dirty by nature, faithless and without control by nature and filthful by it too, with a war between instincts and desires within him – indeed, all that is dirt…he who confesses of it has done humanity the sole favor which I demand of humanity: he distinguished himself, by his nature, from the noble men who are by their own nature noble, and not because of Christianity, society, teachings, philosophies...
Your nature is what you are and what you will be. Do not attempt to set yourself apart with your "reason," because reason is once again your nature, once again your desire and your instincts. Do not remove it from man only to make it a Godsent gift - it is not.
Our desires. That is, our Nature, is what you call...our God...
Be who you are. Because that is all you will be.
Eric, Eric, Eric...
Why are so you quick to make an assumption as ancient and prejudicial as "controlling one's nature"? <shakes head> When do you realize that it is your instincts that are telling you to act and when it is your so-called "reason," you're "divine" and controlling nature? My friend...your reason, your control, your thought of abstaining and restraining, your proclaimed divinity is once again your instincts!
Your instincts tell you sexually enjoy the company of a man. When you decide to withhold such a desire, you believe it to be your "higher nature" which has enabled you to think it through? No - it's your nature once again, your very instincts once again, which made you withhold the desire. It is a desire once again that made you remove yourself from following the other desire - it is not "reason" that helped you.
What belongs to your nature? Your instincts. Everything you do is done out of desire. What you call "reason" and "control" is merely the bridge between your desire and your goal, and nothing more.
What separates us from animals? That we have the capacity to create further than any animal on Earth. What else that separates us from our animals? Here it is: every once in a while, noble men are born. Their instincts are what you only strive to emulate, their being is what you only attempt at being, their morals, spirituality, charm, and reverence, and should I even say "faith," is only something that you know through society, schools of thought, teachings, and so on. What you posses, Eric, you do not posses by heart, your nature is not noble. Hence you only attempt at becoming noble.
Don't speak to me of your "reason," especially of your "higher reason." No...rather speak to me about your desire and your instincts - they are all there is. Every action you have withheld, every desire, every instinct you believe you are "controlling," Eric, is on the contrary being influenced by a greater desire of yours. Desire, and not reason. Instincts, not control. Subjectivity, no objectivity. Ego, and nothing more. All your actions belong to your desires once again, and they are as immediate responses based on your very natural instincts. At the moment of decision, it is another instinct with its own desire that overcomes your immediate instincts for that particular moment. You are internally a battle of desires: each lead by an instinct, and each instinct strives to dominate and overpower the other. “Control” is absent, and will always be, unless you posses the instinct of control, unless your nature itself is of a commanding one. But it is not, hence you are a Christian, hence you need Christianity to supplement for what you certainly lack, and nevertheless, will always lack: control, restraint, faith, command, amongst other things. You are doomed by the fatality of your nature to be who your nature endows, and you will not overcome what you are and your being – you will only reformulate all that you “suppress” into energy to empower what you already posses of your instincts. And your nature does not posses a controlling instinct, you are not of the faithful type, you are as you claim to be of the “sinful” type who wants to “cleanse” themselves. Filth is filth, and he who confesses to being sinful – as in dirty by nature, faithless and without control by nature and filthful by it too, with a war between instincts and desires within him – indeed, all that is dirt…he who confesses of it has done humanity the sole favor which I demand of humanity: he distinguished himself, by his nature, from the noble men who are by their own nature noble, and not because of Christianity, society, teachings, philosophies...
Your nature is what you are and what you will be. Do not attempt to set yourself apart with your "reason," because reason is once again your nature, once again your desire and your instincts. Do not remove it from man only to make it a Godsent gift - it is not.
Our desires. That is, our Nature, is what you call...our God...
Be who you are. Because that is all you will be.
E
EricBess
Guest
But Duke, our ability to reason is a God-given gift. As is our "conscious", which helps us to reason and to determine right from wrong. But I disagree with you that this automatically means that I am not "being myself" simply because I believe in controlling impulses. For example, there was an incident in England (and I think this has happened in other places as well, but this is the one I remember the location of) where two teens got together and murdered a young girl. Why? Because, "they were curious what it felt like to kill." That curiosity is an impulse. An "instinct" if you will. Was that not their nature, then? Are they being true to themselves by following through with such an impulse?
Are you saying it is my "nature", then to control my impulses where that may not be the nature of another? It seems that if this is the case, then it could be argued that everyone is following their "nature" regardless of what they do simply because that is what they have done, so it must have been their nature.
Perhaps there is some subtly that is lost on me with what you are saying.
I believe we are often creatures of habit. A young man, curious about changes happening in his body, has an experience with an older man who takes advantage of his curiosity. The young man becomes confused an is unable to interpret new emotions that he is experiencing. Mix with confusion are pain, betrayal, and physical pleasure. This continues and the man eventually "realizes" that he is homosexual. Now, I'm not claiming that this is the pattern for all, but I think that it happens this way far more than most advocates are willing to admit.
Is it the "nature" of such a man to be homosexual? No, but it becomes a habit and then an addiction. He may hate himself for what he has become and be confused as to why it is so hard to be otherwise, but it is certainly not his "instinct".
Are you saying it is my "nature", then to control my impulses where that may not be the nature of another? It seems that if this is the case, then it could be argued that everyone is following their "nature" regardless of what they do simply because that is what they have done, so it must have been their nature.
Perhaps there is some subtly that is lost on me with what you are saying.
I believe we are often creatures of habit. A young man, curious about changes happening in his body, has an experience with an older man who takes advantage of his curiosity. The young man becomes confused an is unable to interpret new emotions that he is experiencing. Mix with confusion are pain, betrayal, and physical pleasure. This continues and the man eventually "realizes" that he is homosexual. Now, I'm not claiming that this is the pattern for all, but I think that it happens this way far more than most advocates are willing to admit.
Is it the "nature" of such a man to be homosexual? No, but it becomes a habit and then an addiction. He may hate himself for what he has become and be confused as to why it is so hard to be otherwise, but it is certainly not his "instinct".
D
DÛke
Guest
...
You sound as if you did not read the post at all. Otherwise, what the meaning of this sentence, which I see at the beginning of your post:
I never said you're not being yourself. I said you are trying to be someone you are not. It is impossible to NOT be yourself. Impossible. Everything you do is of your being, and not apart of it.
I've said all this before!
But nevertheless...
You know, I have to admit that I am obviously a terrible writer and above all hard to understand, confusing, incomprehensible. I'm tired of my stupidity. Spiderman does not understood a single word from me, and he is an intelligent man. You have a hard grasping what I say, and you're an intelligent man as well. You're older and more experienced too. I honestly get tired of writing and rewriting the same thing with different variations until I'm understood, when I could from the beginning try to be a little more comprehensible so as to avoid explaining myself. But you know, the downside about this is that I tried. I really did. I am incomprehensible - I can't write proper English sentences. I'm not proper at all. I’m doomed to remain incomprehensible as such, I can’t be otherwise…although I tried. We both speak from different levels of experience, and since yours is necessarily better and more profound than mine, I can't compete.
But it was a nice talk, really…I learned something new: I’m infinitely incomprehensible to the extent that I am immediately stricken with a lighting sharp megrim when someone tells me that they don't get it. I mean, I rarely speak to people in real life about such subjects - everyone looks at me with a question tattooed on their clean little foreheads and saliva seeping through one corner of their lips. Why do I even bother here on the net? I guess I too long for someone who can compete with my level of experience, which is quite young and low by all means to someone of your experience.
I'll conceal myself in isolation - it's better for me and this maddening headache of mine...
Oh, Eric, about the book: yes, you would not like it. I just needed someone to share his thoughts with me concerning the book. Everyone calls it "filthy." <sigh> Sometimes I'm more isolated than I want to be...
You sound as if you did not read the post at all. Otherwise, what the meaning of this sentence, which I see at the beginning of your post:
What is our ability to reason? There is no "reason"!
I never said you're not being yourself. I said you are trying to be someone you are not. It is impossible to NOT be yourself. Impossible. Everything you do is of your being, and not apart of it.
Yes, it was their nature. And if they had "reasoned" it out and controlled their curiosity, it would have been yet another impulse. It is once again nature and desire, once again instinct, and not "reason." There is no "reason"!
Yes, it is his instinct. His instinct which tells him to do it, to do it again, and to keep on doing it. Or, his instincts to tell him to stop. Any action he takes are from his instincts, and not his reason. And all actions are meant to obey certain desires. In every action there is a desire, and to each desire there is an instinct.
I've said all this before!
But nevertheless...
You know, I have to admit that I am obviously a terrible writer and above all hard to understand, confusing, incomprehensible. I'm tired of my stupidity. Spiderman does not understood a single word from me, and he is an intelligent man. You have a hard grasping what I say, and you're an intelligent man as well. You're older and more experienced too. I honestly get tired of writing and rewriting the same thing with different variations until I'm understood, when I could from the beginning try to be a little more comprehensible so as to avoid explaining myself. But you know, the downside about this is that I tried. I really did. I am incomprehensible - I can't write proper English sentences. I'm not proper at all. I’m doomed to remain incomprehensible as such, I can’t be otherwise…although I tried. We both speak from different levels of experience, and since yours is necessarily better and more profound than mine, I can't compete.
But it was a nice talk, really…I learned something new: I’m infinitely incomprehensible to the extent that I am immediately stricken with a lighting sharp megrim when someone tells me that they don't get it. I mean, I rarely speak to people in real life about such subjects - everyone looks at me with a question tattooed on their clean little foreheads and saliva seeping through one corner of their lips. Why do I even bother here on the net? I guess I too long for someone who can compete with my level of experience, which is quite young and low by all means to someone of your experience.
I'll conceal myself in isolation - it's better for me and this maddening headache of mine...
Oh, Eric, about the book: yes, you would not like it. I just needed someone to share his thoughts with me concerning the book.
Everyone calls it "filthy." <sigh> Sometimes I'm more isolated than I want to be...
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
EricBess - That was a good article you recommended. Although I find Ms. Bruce's logic somewhat flawed, I agree with her general opinion that there is an insidious leftist "hetero-phobic" movement that seems to seek to (for lack of a better term) "recruit" kids into the homosexual "lifestyle."
The very notion that there is a "homosexual lifestyle" is insulting and degrading, just as most stereotypes are. Most people who've met me would not ever guess that I am gay, since I don't behave in a stereotypically gay fashion. Further, though my coming to grips with my sexuality explained a number of thoughts and feelings I had in my late childhood and teenage years (meaning, I was gay even then) I am certain it would have been counter-productive to separate me from the mainstream kids and stick me in a special school for queers.
Perhaps I was understating when I said that this gay high school idea was a silly one. It's an awful one.
DÛke - I'm honestly never sure when you are being sincere, but in case you have been, I think you're being too hard on yourself.
For one who has learned English as a second language (correct me if I am mistaken on this point) you have an excellent command of the forms and structure of it. Certainly moreso than the average person, based upon my experience (and I spend a lot of time reading). In addition, I think you know this.
The problem is that your conversational technique is very manipulative. Put simply, you use insults, praise, and self-deprecation in an attempt to convince your readers that they are stupid, then insist they don't or won't understand you, then turn against yourself in a ploy for sympathy. Then you repeat the cycle, all the while denying that it's what your doing. Well, some people go for it, while others can see it but choose to argue with you anyway, while others (including myself) grew weary of it a couple of years ago and have learned to skim through what you write very quickly to see if there's anything we might actually want to read and bother to reply to.
Now, on the topic of humanity. It's true we are creatures of instinct. Yet we are also creatures of reason. It took over three billion years to advance from simple unicellular cyanobacteria to the human form complete with the ability to reason. Over that time, it was creatures with instinct, behavior and morphology that were best suited to the their respective environments that thrived.
To this day, there remains evidence of our past in our instinctive and reflexive behaviors. We want food, water, shelter, and sex, because these things contribute to our ability as a species to survive. It is in our nature to prey on the weak, to force sex on others in an attempt to spread our DNA around, and generally to take whatever we can get at the expense of others, all in the cause of advancing the species to the next generation.
So it is true that we are animals. It is important however to understand that we are not merely animals. Our advanced intelligence and capacity for reason has afforded us an ability that is probably unique to our species (at least on this planet). That is the ability to overcome our nature. Whether you believe that this is a gift from God, or the product of evolution, or something else entirely, it is the very essence of humanity. To deny it is backwards thinking.
train - I disagree wholeheartedly that, "The divine, or god, or she-god, whomever it is, only wants one thing right - us to serve them... "
It's my feeling that the desires of God (or whatever you want to call it) are quite impossible to discern. After all, unless one has personally experienced direct and clear communication with God -- and good luck convincing me you have -- how can anyone know.
Despite this, I think that the idea that God wishes to be served by humanity is an archaic one. What would be the point? An Almighty God would have no need of service, and if it desired service, we could be forced into it. Yet out free will makes it obvious that we are not being forced into anything. The idea that we must appease God to avoid punishment is simply a carryover from older religions that defies logic. An Almighty God would already know our every decision, so why put us through the misery of mortal life to find out whether we are worthy of its presence?
I think that God is experiencing the universe it created (the universe it is, if want to know what I really thin think) along with the rest of us, with the added luxury of experiencing it from another dimension of space-time. In other words...all at once, from our perspective.
God merely wants the same thing we do. To exist, and to go on existing.
...
Well, that's all I have to say for the moment, I reckon.
The very notion that there is a "homosexual lifestyle" is insulting and degrading, just as most stereotypes are. Most people who've met me would not ever guess that I am gay, since I don't behave in a stereotypically gay fashion. Further, though my coming to grips with my sexuality explained a number of thoughts and feelings I had in my late childhood and teenage years (meaning, I was gay even then) I am certain it would have been counter-productive to separate me from the mainstream kids and stick me in a special school for queers.
Perhaps I was understating when I said that this gay high school idea was a silly one. It's an awful one.
DÛke - I'm honestly never sure when you are being sincere, but in case you have been, I think you're being too hard on yourself.
For one who has learned English as a second language (correct me if I am mistaken on this point) you have an excellent command of the forms and structure of it. Certainly moreso than the average person, based upon my experience (and I spend a lot of time reading). In addition, I think you know this.
The problem is that your conversational technique is very manipulative. Put simply, you use insults, praise, and self-deprecation in an attempt to convince your readers that they are stupid, then insist they don't or won't understand you, then turn against yourself in a ploy for sympathy. Then you repeat the cycle, all the while denying that it's what your doing. Well, some people go for it, while others can see it but choose to argue with you anyway, while others (including myself) grew weary of it a couple of years ago and have learned to skim through what you write very quickly to see if there's anything we might actually want to read and bother to reply to.
Now, on the topic of humanity. It's true we are creatures of instinct. Yet we are also creatures of reason. It took over three billion years to advance from simple unicellular cyanobacteria to the human form complete with the ability to reason. Over that time, it was creatures with instinct, behavior and morphology that were best suited to the their respective environments that thrived.
To this day, there remains evidence of our past in our instinctive and reflexive behaviors. We want food, water, shelter, and sex, because these things contribute to our ability as a species to survive. It is in our nature to prey on the weak, to force sex on others in an attempt to spread our DNA around, and generally to take whatever we can get at the expense of others, all in the cause of advancing the species to the next generation.
So it is true that we are animals. It is important however to understand that we are not merely animals. Our advanced intelligence and capacity for reason has afforded us an ability that is probably unique to our species (at least on this planet). That is the ability to overcome our nature. Whether you believe that this is a gift from God, or the product of evolution, or something else entirely, it is the very essence of humanity. To deny it is backwards thinking.
train - I disagree wholeheartedly that, "The divine, or god, or she-god, whomever it is, only wants one thing right - us to serve them... "
It's my feeling that the desires of God (or whatever you want to call it) are quite impossible to discern. After all, unless one has personally experienced direct and clear communication with God -- and good luck convincing me you have -- how can anyone know.
Despite this, I think that the idea that God wishes to be served by humanity is an archaic one. What would be the point? An Almighty God would have no need of service, and if it desired service, we could be forced into it. Yet out free will makes it obvious that we are not being forced into anything. The idea that we must appease God to avoid punishment is simply a carryover from older religions that defies logic. An Almighty God would already know our every decision, so why put us through the misery of mortal life to find out whether we are worthy of its presence?
I think that God is experiencing the universe it created (the universe it is, if want to know what I really thin think) along with the rest of us, with the added luxury of experiencing it from another dimension of space-time. In other words...all at once, from our perspective.
God merely wants the same thing we do. To exist, and to go on existing.
...
Well, that's all I have to say for the moment, I reckon.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
And I venture to presume that my ploy is...to have them agree with me? Yet, it is also my ploy to convince them that they are stupid? So in other words, I want those who I consider to be stupid to also agree with me? My! Robbie...Robbie! You have always had such a, um, different imagination...I can see why you wanted to become a writer, and maybe you even still carry that dream at the back of your head, sleeping with it and waking up with day after day, night after night, year after year...but…despite the euphoria I feel just knowing that someone out there can make-complex out of my little simplicity, for the Devil's sake, sometimes you even put my mad little whimsy to shame! It's so wonderful to behold!
Ooo, my...my...my! I just noticed that I might have placed too many smiles here, and perhaps praised you a little, too. Darn it - the cycle of my ploy is taking place again! I simply cannot praise anyone, for it surely belongs to my ploy.
Let's hear the objective of my little game again: to have people agree with me all the while forcing them to feel stupid. Because...you know...I want stupid people to agree with me.
I'm glad you grew out of my hazardous cycle of manipulation, now if only everyone can do that so as to avoid...agreeing with me? Avoid feeling a little...stupid?
If I blame them for misunderstanding me...then it is me insulting.
If I blame myself, then it I am deprecating myself.
If I do neither, I am obviously being...manipulative? Or is my ploy a “work-progress” at that point, and has yet to come to full realization? If I do both, then, wow, I would have been supra-manipulative!
What should a person in my position do! What a dazzling bafflement it is being me, you know? Keep in mind that whatever is done will be seen as either offensive and insulting, or self-deprecating and a plead for sympathy. If I keep going, it becomes more futile - since I already wrote and rewrote most everything a couple of times, as you yourself have confessed. What a mad little enigma you put me through! What a small, confined cage you lock me in – “anything you do,” you tell me, “is undermining!” At that point, what can I do but offer my sympathies and one sincere smile:. But O even that smile is a grin of madness! Even it is a stare of manipulation, seeking to dispirit and conspire, to throw off balance, all to finally move in for the kill: to suddenly humble myself and sit on my knees and pray and plead...
…
I must admit that I can’t argue against such charm. But I can offer a suggestion: my last minute self-deprecating is actually my list minute cop-out. People have called me arrogant too often, so I decided to not blame them for their stupidity any longer – indeed it could be a problem of my own that they fail to understand me. Instead, I began calling myself “stupid.” Spiderman can’t be. Eric can’t be. You, with that charm of yours, certainly can’t be. No one can be, and even if so, no one is willing to admit. We’re all intelligent fellas here, you know? We’re all…equal. Someone has to take the blame, and now, I end up taking it, because I can’t bear the thought that five or six men are all stupid while I being the “superior” one, the one who’s a unfortunately “misunderstood.” Surely it is my problem! No. Indeed it is my problem! What is so deprecating in one admitting the truth?
Or is that the problem, that someone is willing to be truthful at all? Someone is willing to actually take the blame yet still remain standing? Or should no one be blamed, but the midnight muse perhaps, who speaks to me and tells me what to write - she's a manipulative one, so it could be her for all I know.
What should we do? Some one lacks, that’s for sure. If you all say that you are honest men, and that you are all misunderstanding because of my inability to form coherent sentences, than surely I should be able to take your words for it without having such abusive charm rained on me by someone all the way across the states.
Anyway…
Again, at the end of the post, I don’t know what to write. I can’t say anything. I can’t apologize – that’d be deprecating. I can’t point out the flaws of each member – that’s offensive. I can’t ignore members who address me, that’s bad-mannered. What should my final note for this post be? Since anything I say is bound to be the cause of suspicion, I’ll just cop out from here with a smile, and hope it doesn’t send the wrong message.
I love the charm radiating here. I use insults: that's a given. I use praise, and that's a given too. But self-deprecation? Give me some credit! I do not understand - do you view me as an egotist or a self-deprecator, or...wait, is my self-deprecation a part of my big ploy, a part of my egoism too perhaps? Hmmm...it's very interesting Chaos Turtle.
And I venture to presume that my ploy is...to have them agree with me? Yet, it is also my ploy to convince them that they are stupid? So in other words, I want those who I consider to be stupid to also agree with me? My! Robbie...Robbie! You have always had such a, um, different imagination...I can see why you wanted to become a writer, and maybe you even still carry that dream at the back of your head, sleeping with it and waking up with day after day, night after night, year after year...but…despite the euphoria I feel just knowing that someone out there can make-complex out of my little simplicity, for the Devil's sake, sometimes you even put my mad little whimsy to shame! It's so wonderful to behold! Ooo, my...my...my! I just noticed that I might have placed too many smiles here, and perhaps praised you a little, too. Darn it - the cycle of my ploy is taking place again!
I simply cannot praise anyone, for it surely belongs to my ploy.Let's hear the objective of my little game again: to have people agree with me all the while forcing them to feel stupid. Because...you know...I want stupid people to agree with me.
I'm glad you grew out of my hazardous cycle of manipulation, now if only everyone can do that so as to avoid...agreeing with me? Avoid feeling a little...stupid?
If I blame them for misunderstanding me...then it is me insulting.
If I blame myself, then it I am deprecating myself.
If I do neither, I am obviously being...manipulative? Or is my ploy a “work-progress” at that point, and has yet to come to full realization? If I do both, then, wow, I would have been supra-manipulative!
What should a person in my position do! What a dazzling bafflement it is being me, you know? Keep in mind that whatever is done will be seen as either offensive and insulting, or self-deprecating and a plead for sympathy. If I keep going, it becomes more futile - since I already wrote and rewrote most everything a couple of times, as you yourself have confessed. What a mad little enigma you put me through! What a small, confined cage you lock me in – “anything you do,” you tell me, “is undermining!” At that point, what can I do but offer my sympathies and one sincere smile:
. But O even that smile is a grin of madness! Even it is a stare of manipulation, seeking to dispirit and conspire, to throw off balance, all to finally move in for the kill: to suddenly humble myself and sit on my knees and pray and plead...…
I must admit that I can’t argue against such charm. But I can offer a suggestion: my last minute self-deprecating is actually my list minute cop-out. People have called me arrogant too often, so I decided to not blame them for their stupidity any longer – indeed it could be a problem of my own that they fail to understand me. Instead, I began calling myself “stupid.” Spiderman can’t be. Eric can’t be. You, with that charm of yours, certainly can’t be. No one can be, and even if so, no one is willing to admit. We’re all intelligent fellas here, you know? We’re all…equal. Someone has to take the blame, and now, I end up taking it, because I can’t bear the thought that five or six men are all stupid while I being the “superior” one, the one who’s a unfortunately “misunderstood.” Surely it is my problem! No. Indeed it is my problem! What is so deprecating in one admitting the truth?
Or is that the problem, that someone is willing to be truthful at all? Someone is willing to actually take the blame yet still remain standing? Or should no one be blamed, but the midnight muse perhaps, who speaks to me and tells me what to write - she's a manipulative one, so it could be her for all I know.
What should we do? Some one lacks, that’s for sure. If you all say that you are honest men, and that you are all misunderstanding because of my inability to form coherent sentences, than surely I should be able to take your words for it without having such abusive charm rained on me by someone all the way across the states.
Anyway…
Again, at the end of the post, I don’t know what to write. I can’t say anything. I can’t apologize – that’d be deprecating. I can’t point out the flaws of each member – that’s offensive. I can’t ignore members who address me, that’s bad-mannered. What should my final note for this post be? Since anything I say is bound to be the cause of suspicion, I’ll just cop out from here with a smile, and hope it doesn’t send the wrong message.