|
clausti
Oct 19, 2004, 2:35 AM
Post #126 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
edit: delete.
|
|
|
|
|
diana
Oct 19, 2004, 2:56 AM
Post #127 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 93
|
In reply to: In reply to: topic because I was trying to decide whether or not to post about gerunds. And "quick" is an adjective, not a noun. ;-) unless you have an archaic usage :) . such as, ignorance of gerunds quickly cuts me to the quick."
Touche. I forgot about "Sensitive or raw exposed flesh, as under the fingernails." (dictionary.com) But that's not what Bumblie was saying here: In reply to: I frequently say "That went quick". According to some, it should be "That went quickly".
Diana
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Oct 19, 2004, 3:30 AM
Post #128 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: Seems you're reading into the meaning of Pinky's signature. Could be he's just sick of the double standard. Everyone else is allowed to express pride in their sexuality -- why not hetero's?.... So why not a little parody of that absurdity -- "Straight Pride."
Thanks, Ed! If I'd've chosen to be a homosexual instead of the raging hetero that I am, I'd be seriously interested in knowing you a helluva lot more intimately.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Oct 19, 2004, 3:39 AM
Post #129 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
I'm flattered...I think. :mrgreen:
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Oct 19, 2004, 3:44 AM
Post #130 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: In reply to: Or, Eddie-boy - am I screaming "Climbing Pride!"?? Depends on how many Petzl stickers you have on your car.
Did someone say "stickers"? Nothing say "climbing pride" like a Poser-mobile full of stickers.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=38981
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Oct 19, 2004, 4:50 AM
Post #131 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
In reply to: In reply to: topic because I was trying to decide whether or not to post about gerunds. And "quick" is an adjective, not a noun. ;-) unless you have an archaic usage :) . such as, ignorance of gerunds quickly cuts me to the quick."
"Quick" noun is what I was thinking of. Dogs still have quicks. It's not archaic.
Thanks for hijacking my thread everyone. And not reading it. Boo.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Oct 19, 2004, 4:56 AM
Post #132 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
Organic 2 vs. Maculated 0
In reply to: In reply to: #1 We have not defined heterosexuality evolution has! We do not have self fertilizing females or many hemaphrodites so heterosexuality is a standard decide upon by nature as to support the continued existence of the human race! Not neccessarily. There are plenty of homoerotic beasts out there, too. History has shown that homoerotic individuals have produced offspring in the human race as well. Also - this is an irrefutable argument - by allowing said homoerotic individuals to be themselves instead of marrying in the closet, we are helping keep the exploding population down. In the end, this means less population growth, which ultimately helps the human race - evolution?
This is the first refutation of your irrefutable argument.
The thing is that evolution is based off of said beings ability to survive and reproduce, otherwise how can gene multiplication occur hence with no ability to reproduce how can homoeroticity be evolution? and yes history has shown that contributing to .00000001% of the human race does not account for much. Are we just spouting obscure themes or developing a logical argument?
In reply to: In reply to: #2 Pride cometh before the fall and the fact that there is a "Gay pride" day stresses the fact of how unsure some of them are of themselves. If they are truly gay and it is who they are why stress about it just be who you are. I think many times people have thought like maculated and for some reason or another have chosen to be gay. Oh man. Did you not read the thread? I ask you to refute this: Marginalized people are NOT happy. Why the HELL would you CHOOSE to be oppressed? Why would you risk rejection from family, friends, government, and society by choosing something like that?? Gay Pride allows people to not have to fight against something some of this society deems as "wrong." Can you, just for one moment, consider what it might be like to have someone tell you that a huge aspect about you makes you "wrong?" It SUCKS. IT SUCKS IT SUCKS!!! So tell me again why you would choose oppression. It sure doesn't make you popular, and don't we all just want to be loved?
Why choose opppression? Why choose to eat foods that you know shorten your lifespan, why smoke ciggs that destroy your lungs or drink beer that corrodes your liver? Sometimes we do things not because they are logical but because we deem them fun or risque or taboo, you cannot tell me that telling nonclimbing people about your climbing and watching them stare at you in awe because of the risk of climbing or its fringe qualities has not excited in you a sense of pride? Next, to Refute(yes capital R) your argument, the whole christian doctrine is based on being oppressed, yet it is the #1 religion in the world!! Read some of the things Jesus said "How they will hate you" etc. etc. The thing is we do not just want to be loved we want something we can blame our problems on and our mistakes, which with oppression conviently points to the oppressors.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Oct 19, 2004, 5:16 AM
Post #133 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: The thing is that evolution is based off of said beings ability to survive and reproduce, otherwise how can gene multiplication occur hence with no ability to reproduce how can homoeroticity be evolution?
Uh, sorry to intrude on your argument, but I think, with that sentence, you just lost.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Oct 19, 2004, 5:18 AM
Post #134 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: The thing is that evolution is based off of said beings ability to survive and reproduce, otherwise how can gene multiplication occur hence with no ability to reproduce how can homoeroticity be evolution? Uh, sorry to intrude on your argument, but I think, with that sentence, you just lost.
You can take away my pride but you cannot take away my freedom to rate your post bad!!!
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Oct 19, 2004, 5:58 AM
Post #135 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
In reply to: The thing is that evolution is based off of said beings ability to survive and reproduce, otherwise how can gene multiplication occur hence with no ability to reproduce how can homoeroticity be evolution? and yes history has shown that contributing to .00000001% of the human race does not account for much. Are we just spouting obscure themes or developing a logical argument?
Evolution is the result of spontateous gene changes, aka mutations. Natural selection is based off of survival and reproduction. But wait? Why would there exist homoerotic humans if it was all genetics?
Psst. I hate to tell you this, but homoerotic humans comprise a LOT more of the population percentage than that.
Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist, and his associates included homosexuality in their classic 1948 study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Based on the experiences of about 5,300 men, Kinsey found that 37 percent of U.S. men had at least one sexual experience with a same-sex partner that resulted in orgasm. Many of these acts were sexual experimentation by adolescents. Almost all these males went on to live heterosexual lives. Kinsey also concluded that about 4 percent of U.S. males are exclusively homosexual throughout life.
This study was done in 1948, when homosexual individuals were reluctant to come forward. You do the math now.
I'll add something else to refute your argument. Unnatural selection. We quit breeding wantonly a while ago. With the advent of medicine, almost everyone is capable of reproducing and does. People with glasses (a clear disadvantage), people with learning disabilities, people with genetic problems - for the most part, when we choose a mate, it has nothing to do with viability.
I also didn't say that homoeroticism is evolution. I said it's been around. Obviously since the Classical and Biblical eras. If your warrant is that homoeroticism will get beated by evolution - man oh man, you be wrong.
In reply to: Why choose opppression? Why choose to eat foods that you know shorten your lifespan, why smoke ciggs that destroy your lungs or drink beer that corrodes your liver? Sometimes we do things not because they are logical but because we deem them fun or risque or taboo, you cannot tell me that telling nonclimbing people about your climbing and watching them stare at you in awe because of the risk of climbing or its fringe qualities has not excited in you a sense of pride?
So you're saying that a heteroerotic person will choose a life of homoeroticism because it is akin to smoking and drinking? It's just a neat way to relax? Hold the phone - last I checked I wasn't hooking up with chicks at parties, but I've been known to imbibe on other pleasures.
I don't tell most people about my climbing. Like the dog thing I do, it's a secret double life. And does a gay person enjoy that sense of pride in their reaction to others? Negatory.
In reply to: Next, to Refute(yes capital R) your argument, the whole christian doctrine is based on being oppressed, yet it is the #1 religion in the world!! Read some of the things Jesus said "How they will hate you" etc. etc.
You know, for pulling the Christian punch, you aren't quoting scripture. I'm disappointed. I can't argue with a historical document that you base your logic off of. Jesus is the one big card you can pull and I can't argue with - because suspension of disbelief is strong in those of faith. Trust me, I used to be a stringent Catholic.
In reply to: The thing is we do not just want to be loved we want something we can blame our problems on and our mistakes, which with oppression conviently points to the oppressors.
So gay people aren't looking for love? They are looking for a way to blame? Interesting, yet illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Oct 19, 2004, 7:33 AM
Post #136 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
This is definitely by far the most interesting thread I hav read in community, and I will pitch my $.02, even if I did get to the party late:
On Columbius, his nationality and his religion are both still contested by scientists and historians alike, although the common agreement is he was Italian.
On pride, there are a bunch of issues here I am interested in, but here are a couple:
Gay pride, in the sense that it is a reactionary force to the shame that was imposed upon the gay population for a long time is, in and of itself, a good thing, I believe,, because it helps break down a lot of the barriers that were created by this impostion. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how many people here feel being gay is a matter of choice, and how many feel ir is genetic. If you belive it is genetic, then how can you say it is something to be proud of? If you were "born gay", you have no more to be proud of than I did, because I was born straight.
Another interesting form of pride is patriotism or nationalism. I am proud to be Latino, but there is no real reason to be proud of it, not by Mac definition. It does not make me better or special in any way, yet latin pride is very common. Or Irish pride for that matter...
Finally, I do believe white males are subjected to some forms of oppression, the perfect example is college coutas. I now for a fact one of the scholarships I recieved, was not because I was the best overall candidate, but because I was the best overall candidate who would fill a latino slot in the quotas. How can you honestly say that is not discrimination against he guy who lost against me? The same holds true for African-Americans, women etc... (although I am aware it doesnt apply to homosexuals, not yet anyway).
Oh, and by the way, I am proud to be a climber, because I think my climbing exhibits some of my better character traits, and because of the way it makes me feel, although I don't believe that makes me any better than my non-climbing friends (although I would never admit that to them!)
-F
|
|
|
|
|
tisar
Oct 19, 2004, 9:58 AM
Post #137 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
|
In reply to: Gay pride, in the sense that it is a reactionary force to the shame that was imposed upon the gay population for a long time is, in and of itself, a good thing, I believe,, because it helps break down a lot of the barriers that were created by this impostion.
In reply to: Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see how many people here feel being gay is a matter of choice, and how many feel ir is genetic.
The question if genetic or not is the wrong question. As coylec stated before, the binary of gay/straigt is a social construction and doesn't exist "a priori" or by nature. When people try to explain sexuality by bringing in evolution they forget a crucial part of surviving: the social cohesion. Sexuality can't be reduced to the procreative act. Sexuality is also a drive which makes us humans gregarious animals. So far all people are meant to be "bisexual" in a social way.
The procreative attraction to one sex I'm sure is a mixture of genetic and ontogenetic (personal devolopement) premises. But it's hardly an either/or decision but a tendency. Only society forces us to commit oneself to one or the other (note that bisexual people are in fact more oppressed than "straight" gay poeple).
In reply to: If you belive it is genetic, then how can you say it is something to be proud of? If you were "born gay", you have no more to be proud of than I did, because I was born straight.
You gave the answer to that question by yourself (accentuated part of your quote). It's not a pride of beeing gay but of living gay and express yourself against the mainstream.
In reply to: Another interesting form of pride is patriotism or nationalism. I am proud to be Latino, but there is no real reason to be proud of it, not by Mac definition. It does not make me better or special in any way, yet latin pride is very common. Or Irish pride for that matter...
Everyone looks for attributes which will make himself unique or different (especially those which wouldn't offend anyone other). There's nothing wrong in defining youself by some unique characteristics. Origin is just one option and there's nothing wrong with it if it's not meant as an excluding attribute against others.
In reply to: Finally, I do believe white males are subjected to some forms of oppression, the perfect example is college coutas. [..] How can you honestly say that is not discrimination against he guy who lost against me? The same holds true for African-Americans, women etc... (although I am aware it doesnt apply to homosexuals, not yet anyway).
The topic "positive discrimination" is a very contraversal discussed one. Personally you were (positivly) discriminated by the college quota. You can call that unjust and on a personal level you're right.
But quotas aren't meant to be personal (though the effects are). It's a matter of society. One of the constitutive elements of democracy is equality. This equality can't be meant on the level of individuals as peole are not equal. It's an abstract equality that should provide comparable preconditions for all citizens despite race, sex, religion etc.. From that point of view it is allowed (if not obligatory) for the government/administration to find ways to bias social indifferences. Quotas are a way to do so. It's still contraversal as there might be better ways of coping with indifferences. But as quotas are easy to institute and known to work they are at least a legitimate tool.
In reply to: Oh, and by the way, I am proud to be a climber, because I think my climbing exhibits some of my better character traits, and because of the way it makes me feel, although I don't believe that makes me any better than my non-climbing friends (although I would never admit that to them!)
If more people where just proud of what they do, who they are and what makes them unique without bashing others for beeing different, the world would be far more friendly and colorful... (now I'm dreaming).
- Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Oct 19, 2004, 1:21 PM
Post #138 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: The thing is that evolution is based off of said beings ability to survive and reproduce, otherwise how can gene multiplication occur hence with no ability to reproduce how can homoeroticity be evolution? and yes history has shown that contributing to .00000001% of the human race does not account for much. Are we just spouting obscure themes or developing a logical argument? Evolution is the result of spontateous gene changes, aka mutations. Natural selection is based off of survival and reproduction. But wait? Why would there exist homoerotic humans if it was all genetics?
Evolution is not the result of "spontaneous gene change" in fact the definition of evolution is change in allele or gene frequency over time. And I said contributing to all the human race ever as a whole but see Kensey part down below first.
FLIPFLOPPER! Did you not just say a little while ago that being gay is solely based off of genetics. I cannot find the post but something akin to, "Last time I checked it was based off of genetics"
Also I never said mate choice was based on viability, It is simple the only way a gene can survive, the being with the gene must survive to procreate. You say that with modern medecine and such everyone survives to create well I think that is wrong assumption and I will just say go spend one day in a third world country or in a hospital or tell me why around 15% of the population in western africa has sickle cell anemia?
Lastly to quote something about Kinsey "Fully 25% of Kinsey's survey group were, or had been, prison inmates, 5% were male prostitutes, and the majority were volunteers" ( http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male ) That kind of leaves that part high and dry, anything else?
PS. If you cannot argue with the religious point then tell me this, is not "gayness" the anti-thesis of christianity so to speak? It is like they are the two warring religions in the US.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Oct 19, 2004, 3:10 PM
Post #139 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
edit: delete.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 19, 2004, 3:21 PM
Post #140 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Isn't it discriminatory to tell people they're not allowed to have pride in being straight?
|
|
|
|
|
treesail
Oct 19, 2004, 3:23 PM
Post #141 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: Isn't it discriminatory to tell people they're not allowed to have pride in being straight?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 19, 2004, 3:25 PM
Post #142 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: In reply to: Isn't it discriminatory to tell people they're not allowed to have pride in being straight? No.
Not even when you're simultaneously telling them that homosexuals are allowed to have pride in being gay?
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Oct 19, 2004, 3:26 PM
Post #144 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
edit: delete.
|
|
|
|
|
treesail
Oct 19, 2004, 3:31 PM
Post #145 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Isn't it discriminatory to tell people they're not allowed to have pride in being straight? No. Not even when you're simultaneously telling them that homosexuals are allowed to have pride in being gay?
Let's try it out. "Tradman, you're not allowed to have pride in being straight, but homosexuals are allowed to have pride in being gay."
This is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 19, 2004, 3:35 PM
Post #146 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Yes it is. Nobody's sure what your point is why you think it's not discriminatory, but it's good fun nonethless.
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Oct 19, 2004, 3:37 PM
Post #147 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: As I've said before, homosexuals are, aside from their sexuality, unremarkable.
As I've said before, heterosexuals are, aside from their sexuality, unremarkable.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
Oct 19, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #148 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: Isn't it discriminatory to tell people they're not allowed to have pride in being straight?
Where the rubber meets the road for me, in this 'discussion,' is that logic goes out the window when things get emotional. This topic was originally raised via a mild disbelief at pinktricam's indignant sig,
http://images.google.com/.../3/489562.152903.gif.
Upon looking at it again I think I have realized why I was so quickly peeved. Unlike a gay pride pink triangle, which is derived from the symbol the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear on their arm, this image is text (duh) plus a nice cutout showing the slut of the month... or maybe it's a cutout of tricam's mom and it has nothing to do with objectifying/sexualizing women as a whole.
So the difference between the two slogans/symbols is the 'gay pride' is a reminder: "hey all, we've been repressed and oppressed for a really long time, and we don't want it to continue." As opposed to pinktricam's 'straight pride' which says: "hey y'all, I'm a red-blooded MAN and keep your daughters/sisters/girlfriends reigned in tight 'cause I'm a gonna DO IT with 'em. Yee-haw!"
|
|
|
|
|
treesail
Oct 19, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #149 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 204
|
In reply to: Yes it is. Nobody's sure what your point is why you think it's not discriminatory, but it's good fun nonethless. :lol:
It's not that I don't think it's discriminatory (or even much give a shit), it's just that anyone taking their cues from me one way or another about what they should or should not be proud of is funny from the get-go. :lol:
Waterdrinker Pride!
|
|
|
|
|
tisar
Oct 19, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #150 of 257
(4264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
|
Let's try it out in a different way:
"I'm proud to be part of the mainstream."
vs.
"I'm proud that I live how I chose to live my life."
- Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
|
