"Homophobia" - The True Meaning

[Vortex]

(EDIT: This wasnt going to be a long post...but i guess with such a long message a long reply was warrented)

 

That was quite a long starting post (read it for the first time today...so give me a moment to ramp up)....first off im not reading things from a book...im discussing from my own personal experiences.....I cant speak for anyone else...ahem...

 

Since its pretty futile to just jump in and bitch whine and moan or even use the 'poor me' angle i thought i would touch on a few subtleties i noticed in the first post...

 

When the Gay 'community' invented the term 'Homophobia', the purpose was quite clear. It was deliberately designed to vilify anyone who did not state and believe that homosexuals were the best people in the world. It is used exclusively and consistently to mean, "The hatred of homosexuals".

 

Close....

 

According to Merriam-Webster the word phobia means : an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.

 

So hatred of...was'nt quite on the mark. More likely "the fear of gays"...and here is why the term actually works...

 

Fear is one of the most powerful human defense mechanisms. Once instilled you have more or less 2 choices. "Flee or Fight"....thats instinct. Unfortunately for, lets just say me, when it comes to a person with a preconcieved idea that homosexuals are lesser human beings as society and many good christians constantly elude too.... it means now their choice is to just fight. With words...or violence.....both hurts....

 

It has happened to me a few times and not because I did anything or said anything to anyone...just in the wrong place at the wrong time because someone thought it would be fun to go pick on the "gays".

 

as for villify...i know enough gays that deserve to be villified...but thats another story for another day (and yes i know equal amounts of straight ones as well).

 

Gays are not slow to complain about anything. They are even quicker to blame someone else for self-inflicted problems. They can never be responsible for doing anything bad. If they do bad things, it is because they are forced into it by others. Yet, in their own publications, [which they imagine normal people do not read], they frequently let slip some of the truth about themselves and what they like to inflict upon themselves , freehand.

I complain constantly when someone tells me that my """"choices"""" are sending me to hell, or the fact that the general word "gay" is used to mean something bad...but then the turnaround when they are okay they use the term "im straight thanks"....its a subtle society thing...but i see it and it makes me cringe..

 

self-inflicted problems? not sure what you mean.....my own self conflict is the fact that most people annoy me......so finding a partner has been hard....but im okay with that fact at the moment....and what exactly did you read that lets out some of these "truths"?

 

When one examines incidences of "homophobia", one finds it most obvious within this group itself - the "Macho Gays" despise the "Drag Queens." - the "Gays" (a term lately restricted exclusively to males ) dislike the "Bisexuals", who in turn hate the Lesbians, who in turn reciprocate with equal venom and so forth.

 

that used to be true...but it seems to be dimishing....however as far as whom your attracted to that will never change. Any gay friendship group i know of has a mix of most of the stereotypes of gay culture. Even the dating of the unusal mixes have been changing (granted im in the midwest...so perhaps its a snobby coastal thing that you are referring too). I was a drag queen for 9 years...i got tired of it (but do miss the mild star status it did allow me)...but I also got tired of the stigma that drag queens are all thieves and drug addicts...(me being neither)...it wears thin...granted that too is diminishing as time goes on...but unfortunately for some of those i worked with...they themselves arent fixing that image of themselves...que sera sera

 

Gays themselves freely admit that those who make a sport of bashing them are themselves repressed Gays.

I believe that is a theory leftover from high school as the ones who bullied then came out years later....So its one of those "phobias" about bullies and usually calling them "in the closet"

 

The latest fad is the Gay push to exploit youth suicide in order to promote their own cause, the agenda being to recruit more youth into their pool. They claim an increase in youth suicide because of homophobia. Whilst it may be true that a majority of suiciding youths are homosexuals, it would be most awkward to explain why it is rising at a time in history when homosexuals have not only been accepted, but have become culturally dominant! Surely it should have been at its peak in the dark old days when this practice was stated to be strictly illegal and strongly frowned on by society at large?

This is a newer thing I think because we are in an unbalanced time. People teach acceptance and love (blah blah)...yet no one actually practices it. Back in the "old days" people adored frankie and annette.....now its 50cent and tupac....so the "playing it straight" angle doesnt work anymore...and sometimes people decide to end it all (frankly i think suicide is the dumbest choice..but thats me). And I say this as a friend......the comment about "recruiting"...you can fuck yourself for that one..

 

But a study of individual homosexuals and their problems reveals that they have, through their own mixed-up nature severe personality conflicts and self hatreds. These are built in and not imposed by an external culture.

how so? and what problems....

 

Most Gays have a dread of growing old. They feel that when the wrinkles appear and they begin to lose the energy to party all night' date=' life is no longer worth living.[/quote']

who doesnt dread growing old? Who wants to be sitting in a Lazy-Boy when they would rather be out active? I know plenty of gays who dont feel the need to party all night! Granted i go drinking far more often than i should, but thats my choice...and im not really doing it crazy. I "chill" with friends...chat and go home....im not at a rave swinging glow sticks willy nilly......actually i never have...

 

Gays continually attack the Churches for teaching that "homosexuality is a sin." No Church has ever taught this!

Never huh? Really....seriously? hmmmm. Just had a conversation with a distant friend that her grandmother (whom is a devout democrat) was actually TOLD by her pastor to not vote democratic because they "promote homosexual marriage"....ok...now lets just state the obvious one... http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ghfmir/main/index.html

 

Certainly there is every reason to feel sympathy for the plight of the Gays, who possess minds that are disposed to be female, yet trapped in a male body. The Lesbians, likewise, to the contrary. From a study of their own pornography and the antics of prominent individuals such as Michael Jackson, it would appear that what almost all of them aspire to become, is a middle-class white housewife! This specific pornography invariably features very burly, very masculine males, sporting a full, healthy head of hair. Clearly, the aspiration is not what they want to become, but rather what they desire to have done to them.

Michael Jackson is a pedeophile....therefore not a classic homosexual.

 

middle-class white housewife? This came from porn? Strange I dont remember the last video i saw ever having a minivan pull into the driveway, have 3 screaming kids home from soccer practice run into the house, and then have 2 dudes getting it on...what the hell kinda study was that?

 

Ive seen ALOT of porn in my day (and thats because i have been single for far too long...and not whoring around) and trust me...that doesnt seem to be a theme (unless its some kept poolboy...but that fantasy only goes so far)...

 

ok im getting tired of cutting and pasting so ill end this for now

 

Alternatively, as suggested by some of our most distinguished scientists, we could eliminate what in reality amounts to no more than a simple, preventable birth defect, with the consequence of eliminating entirely this deviant trait along with the problem population itself, way before its inception, thus saving more complicated, even more expensive solutions? Yet, whatever we should do will never be discovered, whilst we are continually misdirected by dangerous red herrings such as "Homophobia".

 

Deviant trait...just like divorce? dead beat dads? abortion? child molestation? murder? infedelity? rape?

 

If scientists were looking for a "preventable birth defect" then perhaps they should be looking for ones that have more importance than homosexuality. Or did i name too many white elephants?

....Furthermore all of the above elephants are choices....my sexual attraction to grown adults of the same gender wasnt a choice, nor did I have any of the classic text book situations for environmental "turning" of straight people gay growing up.

 

 

 

ps...did you actually write that or was that a cut and paste job?

[builder]

Good for you Vortex. Give him fuckin' heaps.

[Feckless Wench]

Too long, got bored, get to the fucking point already!

[hugo]

From Islamonline

 

"Islam emphatically forbids this deed [homosexual sex] and prescribes a severe punishment for it in this world and the next. How could it be otherwise, when the Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ‘Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’ (At-Tirmidhi: 1376) That is, if it is done with consent."

 

In the Christian world it is debated if gays should be allowed to be married. In the world of Islam the debate is over the manner of execution. Allah hates fags.

[hugo]

The Great Goombah has a different position. From the Holy Goombah, Book of Goober 2:19

 

Gay males means more pussy for the rest of us.

 

Let us praise Goombah by lifting a glass of the fermented crops of the field. No wonder Goombanism is fast replacing the Abrahamic religions.

[Flatearther]

Vortex wrote:

According to Merriam-Webster the word phobia means : an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. So hatred of...was'nt quite on the mark. More likely "the fear of gays"...and here is why the term actually works...Fear is one of the most powerful human defense mechanisms. Once instilled you have more or less 2 choices. "Flee or Fight"....thats instinct. Unfortunately for, lets just say me, when it comes to a person with a preconcieved idea that homosexuals are lesser human beings as society and many good christians constantly elude too.... it means now their choice is to just fight. With words...or violence.....both hurts....

I don't really have a desperate need for a sneering homily on the use of language. I'm quite acquainted with the academic etymology AND meaning of the word and I also am aware of the way that such terms can be used, but more importantly ABUSED for a variety of effects, tone of voice not being the least. However, my main point is that to call a 'woman hater' a mysoginist and then switch to calling a gay hater a 'homophobe' is both dishonest, inconsistent and misleading. It is telling porkies for the sake of an emotional advantage. I am complaining about the deliberate misuse of a word in a context that does not deserve such loose application and the deliberate avoidance of the original complaint. A slur simply terminates any further discussion. . If a gay is criticised then that criticism should be handled on its merits. A cheap slander from either side is just not good enough, let alone acceptable.

self-inflicted problems? not sure what you mean.....my own self conflict is the fact that most people annoy me......so finding a partner has been hard....but im okay with that fact at the moment....and what exactly did you read that lets out some of these "truths"?

If I were to come to a simple conclusion based on one or two bits of material, it would be not only irresponsible, but dog ignorant. I, like yourself, have travelled around the block a few times and we have gathered much material for our experiences. Many colours make up our perceptive rainbow. I trust my observations and the way I process those observations. I can assure you I would not have included such a piece into the puzzle without having thought it through. I have met gays and non gays who have been scrupulously honest with and about themselves and I have seen the reverse as well. I bother to read the material that the gay capital of the world (Sydney) produces and I have a good feel for what the 'vibe' is transmitting. I do not need to lie to make my point, which is but a short paraphrasing from a vast store of digested material..

that used to be true...but it seems to be dimishing....

We're obviously singing from the same hymn book here. But quality trumps quantity and every exception tests (not proves) the rule.

Quote: Originally Posted by flat Gays themselves freely admit that those who make a sport of bashing them are themselves repressed Gays. I believe that is a theory leftover from high school as the ones who bullied then came out years later....So its one of those "phobias" about bullies and usually calling them "in the closet"

Actually it's an ongoing thing. We used to be told that the only 'queers' around were those limp wristed window dressers in the department stores. This left all the footy players, the cops, the firemen, the bikers etc to be free to have their wars and stoushes. I saw more bloodshed between the macho-drag set 'interbitch' sessions than in any war movie. You soon knew who was doing what and to whom. Let's not get too precious about interfag rivalry - you know what I'm saying.

And I say this as a friend......the comment about "recruiting"...you can fuck yourself for that one..

And I also respond in the spirit of friendship. If my observation was based on malice, you'd be entitled to draw such a drastic curtain call. However, you, of all people would know that in the gay world, not all its inhabitants are cut from the cloth of angels. Recruitment is an industry in itself and it is as varied as the people who run it. You know that gays are just as capable of doing some horrific things in pursuit of their pleasures as are the ostensibly 'straight' ones who may have something dark to hide. We could both tell stories to straighten the hair on a billiard ball.

Quote: But a study of individual homosexuals and their problems reveals that they have, through their own mixed-up nature severe personality conflicts and self hatreds. These are built in and not imposed by an external culture. how so? and what problems....

Once you've bothered to read the 1966 article in Scientific American called "Sex Differences In The Brain" all the ducks line up. We're talking hormone distribution that gets set for the life of the animal, human or otherwise. All biological systems go sideways to some degree sooner or later. On the personal and social level, we come across gays who have "identity crises", along with conflicts ranging across a spectrum of symptoms, including self loathing, angst of humungous proportions and lots more. The old adage "My mother made me a homosexual" was ok for a while, but you can soon spot when someone is using excuses for questionable behaviour.

who doesnt dread growing old?

Many more than you think. But when your appearance is the essential base of your existence, then the spectre of it being dissolved is far more acute. For example, ballet dancers have an intensely short public shelflife and you soon get to read between the lines once they put aside the bravado front. Shortlived careers produce intense angst in most all walks of life. Gays are no exception and privately their angst is more deeply felt, given the opportunity to alow it free rein.

Quote: Gays continually attack the Churches for teaching that "homosexuality is a sin." No Church has ever taught this! Never huh? really....seriously? hmmmm. Just had a conversation with a distant friend that her grandmother (whom is a devout democrat) was actually TOLD by her pastor to not vote democratic because they "promote homosexual marriage"

I never even implied that there was a shortage of dickheads, especially among Christians. But that doesn't mean you can't accept and handle the ignorance on its merit - or lack of it, as we do with dickheads and ignorami anywhere else. Nothing wrong with a bit of sensible perspective, no?

Michael Jackson is a pedeophile....therefore not a classic homosexual.

So what? I don't see anything to disagree with.

middle-class white housewife? This came from porn?

We're actually discussing the psychology and pathology of theme, meaning and aspiration. Conceptual stuff doesn't rely on specific pictures or words about anything. Like a good joke, it needs no 'explanation' - you either 'get it' or you don't. Not all things are set in kiddie style plasticine.I assume I can mention the odd abstract thing and be comprehended from time to time, or does everything need to be a PPT presentation?

If scientists were looking for a "preventable birth defect" then perhaps they should be looking for ones that have more importance than homosexuality. Or did i name too many white elephants?

They're not looking for anything. It was found back in 1966 "Sex Differences In The Brain". They have also found far bigger things than 'white elephants' but weeding out the criminals and other anti social layers is easier said than done. Eventually we'll probably have a safe place to live, but we still have a lot of jungle to clear.

....Furthermore all of the above elephants are choices....my sexual attraction to grown adults of the same gender wasnt a choice,

Then you are a heretic to mainstream gays. They now accept that 'We're born that way & accept and embrace our uniqueness". You had as much choice in that matter as a left hander has a choice in his 'handedness'. It's a natural trait that has nothing to do with social values, religious alliance, will-power or won't-power or any other power. It's just like some eggs have two yolks. Hormones happen.

ps...did you actually write that or was that a cut and paste job?

I'm not sure why you had to slot in such a cheap shot. If you can't tell from the rest of my material that I don't need to be a thief of any description, then you've basically devalued yourself in the eyes of others. I hope in time you can forgive yourself and just get on with it. That's as sincere as any atheist can get. Cheers!

[Flatearther]

Good for you Vortex. Give him fuckin' heaps.

Bite yourself on the arse, CYBERSLUT! Vortex is OK. More civilised than your goode selfe. He actually has a decency and coherence (unlike your goode selfe) that makes for a refreshing change in these here parts, Pilgrim.Cheers!

[Flatearther]

hugo wrote:

In the Christian world it is debated if gays should be allowed to be married. In the world of Islam the debate is over the manner of execution. Allah hates fags.

Maybe if the Muslim fags were allowed to do each other they'd be less inclined to strap on bombs and terrorise us decent white folk? Unhappy gays are a worry anywhere. Cheers!

[Phantom]

The term homophobia certainly appears to have negative connotations- similar to claiming an advocate of abortion is pro-death while one opposed to abortion is labeled anti-choice. One's personal opinion of homosexuality should not interfere with the fact this term is a misnomer.

[Vortex]

This will prolly be another longie...So feckless feel free to utilize your 2 second attention span and hit the back button...no need to complain about something you didnt read...

 

I don't really have a desperate need for a sneering homily on the use of language. I'm quite acquainted with the academic etymology AND meaning of the word and I also am aware of the way that such terms can be used' date=' but more importantly ABUSED for a variety of effects, tone of voice not being the least. However, my main point is that to call a 'woman hater' a mysoginist and then switch to calling a gay hater a 'homophobe' is both dishonest, inconsistent and misleading. It is telling porkies for the sake of an emotional advantage. I am complaining about the deliberate misuse of a word in a context that does not deserve such loose application and the deliberate avoidance of the original complaint. A slur simply terminates any further discussion. . If a gay is criticised then that criticism should be handled on its merits. A cheap slander from either side is just not good enough, let alone acceptable.[/quote']

OK i agree with that conclusion. But it isnt only a homosexual problem or issue.....it is used with racism, clasism as well (oh and etc)....People now-a-days seem to whine if they dont get their way and resort to the lowest common denominator...sad but true...but just to pin it on the gays isnt fair either (granted im sure you arent...but just sayin'). But also to say it doesnt happen and the word is only used as an excuse is also untrue and misleading...

 

If I were to come to a simple conclusion based on one or two bits of material, it would be not only irresponsible, but dog ignorant. I, like yourself, have travelled around the block a few times and we have gathered much material for our experiences. Many colours make up our perceptive rainbow. I trust my observations and the way I process those observations. I can assure you I would not have included such a piece into the puzzle without having thought it through. I have met gays and non gays who have been scrupulously honest with and about themselves and I have seen the reverse as well. I bother to read the material that the gay capital of the world (Sydney) produces and I have a good feel for what the 'vibe' is transmitting. I do not need to lie to make my point, which is but a short paraphrasing from a vast store of digested material..

 

here i thought the gay capital was amsterdam...shrug...anyhoo. Perhaps it is more regional than we might think...perhaps not. But here in the states (more the midwest) I see alot less of these things going on. And i didnt imply any lying....just wanting to know deeper...

 

Actually it's an ongoing thing. We used to be told that the only 'queers' around were those limp wristed window dressers in the department stores. This left all the footy players, the cops, the firemen, the bikers etc to be free to have their wars and stoushes. I saw more bloodshed between the macho-drag set 'interbitch' sessions than in any war movie. You soon knew who was doing what and to whom. Let's not get too precious about interfag rivalry - you know what I'm saying.

yes i do know what your saying...i always thought most "gay drama" was petty and very schoolyard....Nothing further to add other than my own personal opinion is most of the macho guys seem to be FAR more girlie than most drag queens i know...but thats just what i have seen!

 

And I also respond in the spirit of friendship. If my observation was based on malice, you'd be entitled to draw such a drastic curtain call. However, you, of all people would know that in the gay world, not all its inhabitants are cut from the cloth of angels. Recruitment is an industry in itself and it is as varied as the people who run it. You know that gays are just as capable of doing some horrific things in pursuit of their pleasures as are the ostensibly 'straight' ones who may have something dark to hide. We could both tell stories to straighten the hair on a billiard ball.

 

Yes and no......Perhaps my problem is i choose not to hang around shady people or someone who i even think would be doing something so rash and insane as "recruitment" so maybe thats my problem....but being a (quote unquote) "star" in the gay community where i know SO many people that i couldnt keep anyones name straight (they all became honey, baby, child, girl...what have you) I never even knew of any sort of story of people recruiting (other than the occasional "hitting on the straight guy" a tad too hard thing....) And the only stories about straightening the hair on billiard balls are ones that were rumored to have HIV/AIDS and sleeping with strangers constantly and not telling them....Happend to me once...scared the living crap out of me....and i learned a VERY important lesson...and decided to warn others of anyone i knew of doing that...call it principles or being a good citizen...shrug

 

Once you've bothered to read the 1966 article in Scientific American called "Sex Differences In The Brain" all the ducks line up. We're talking hormone distribution that gets set for the life of the animal, human or otherwise. All biological systems go sideways to some degree sooner or later. On the personal and social level, we come across gays who have "identity crises", along with conflicts ranging across a spectrum of symptoms, including self loathing, angst of humungous proportions and lots more. The old adage "My mother made me a homosexual" was ok for a while, but you can soon spot when someone is using excuses for questionable behaviour.

It sounds familliar...i think i read that in college for a paper i did...perhaps not.......Is that article still relevant? Prolly is...just dont know. I for one think no one has any excuse other to live up to their own actions. If someone is aware what they are doing is questionable and its only hurting themselves...i guess there isnt much i can do to help them if they already know. Sometimes i wish the addage was true about "my mother made me a homo"...then maybe i could get her to shut up about the old question "are you seeing anyone right now"?......."no?...well that probably for the best"! Love her and all but ARGH!

 

Many more than you think. But when your appearance is the essential base of your existence, then the spectre of it being dissolved is far more acute. For example, ballet dancers have an intensely short public shelflife and you soon get to read between the lines once they put aside the bravado front. Shortlived careers produce intense angst in most all walks of life. Gays are no exception and privately their angst is more deeply felt, given the opportunity to alow it free rein.

The only time for me that my appearance was essential to my existance is when i performed...but it was more on my makeup or am i "bulging" anywhere i shouldnt. Since i retired (almost a year go) i seem to have "let myself go" in the metro/homosexual sense and became a hairy wildebeest and really dont care about grooming anything beyond my face (or AHEM)....granted i dress nice for work...but when im at home or just out i could care less if im not wearing a belt, or if my jeans have a wrinkle in them...just seems like too much work. If someone isnt attracted to you for you...then i dont want them period...I certainly dont fuck anyone for their clothing....

 

Then you are a heretic to mainstream gays. They now accept that 'We're born that way & accept and embrace our uniqueness". You had as much choice in that matter as a left hander has a choice in his 'handedness'. It's a natural trait that has nothing to do with social values, religious alliance, will-power or won't-power or any other power. It's just like some eggs have two yolks. Hormones happen.

this reply has totaly confused me....I just said i didnt have a choice...i never knew any different (or at least when i hit puberty and knew what sex was and what i was attracted to)....so how does that make me a heretic that i actually believe i was born that way or at least didnt have the choice?

 

I'm not sure why you had to slot in such a cheap shot. If you can't tell from the rest of my material that I don't need to be a thief of any description, then you've basically devalued yourself in the eyes of others. I hope in time you can forgive yourself and just get on with it. That's as sincere as any atheist can get. Cheers!

Your right it was a cheap shot...but i have seen it happen before. not to mention this is probably the first post of yours I have read. My appearance here has been spotty in the last year (maybe 2) so i know zero about you other than this post which obviously caught my eye. Since i have seen it before i figured it wouldnt hurt to ask, devalued or not...I honestly dont care what anyone thinks of me...especially on the internet where words wont actually punch me in the face...I can make the choice to just leave, but i dont...i always seem to come back.

 

But forgive myself? I take full responsibility for every word i utter....if i messed up i mess up..bottom line. I do apologize for the cheap shot, yes, but forgive myself...i really didnt do anything wrong ....just curiosity while making a joke at the same time....

 

on that note....from the great movie History of the World Part 1 "More Wine...."

 

ta ta!

[Flatearther]

The term homophobia certainly appears to have negative connotations- similar to claiming an advocate of abortion is pro-death while one opposed to abortion is labeled anti-choice. One's personal opinion of homosexuality should not interfere with the fact this term is a misnomer.

Phuck! It's the Phantom! Nice work, mate.I am constantly on the "mangled word" bandwagon. If they were just misused by ignorant dickheads, it wouldn't be such a problem. The trouble is that a lot of malicious, cunning and politically motivated agendas are filled with this stuff. The big war is always against that creature that no one seems able to tolerate - the CRITIC. You can flatter anyone and they'll not be able to get enough. But utter a word of criticism and the roof falls in. Critics of Jews are always called Anti-Semites. Critics of Negroes or Aborigines are always called Racists. Critics of Muslims are called Racists as well, even though they're not a race. Critics of women are called Sexists. Critics of homosexuals are now addressed as Homophobes. The list goes on and on ad nauseam. The only ones you don't need a licence to criticise and are offered every free kick in the book are white heterosexual males. Therein endeth the lesson, Pilgrims. Cheers!

[Flatearther]

OK i agree with that conclusion. But it isnt only a homosexual problem or issue.....it is used with racism' date=' clasism as well (oh and etc)....People now-a-days seem to whine if they dont get their way and resort to the lowest common denominator...sad but true...but just to pin it on the gays isnt fair either (granted im sure you arent...but just sayin'). But also to say it doesnt happen and the word is [i']only[/i] used as an excuse is also untrue and misleading...

Refreshing to swap words with a reasonable approach. Thank you. Check my reply to "Phuck! It's the Phantom". That amplifies my complaint and argument. So far we seem to get along.

here i thought the gay capital was amsterdam...shrug...anyhoo. Perhaps it is more regional than we might think...perhaps not. But here in the states (more the midwest) I see alot less of these things going on. And i didnt imply any lying....just wanting to know deeper..

. Amsterdam or Sydney is irrelevant, really, because the material is actually universal (worldwide) and there's plenty to draw from.

yes i do know what your saying...i always thought most "gay drama" was petty and very schoolyard....Nothing further to add other than my own personal opinion is most of the macho guys seem to be FAR more girlie than most drag queens i know...but thats just what i have seen!

Hear, hear! It's the stuf that doesn't get published that's really interesting. Usually (in politics) reporters sit on dynamite for most of their careers and can't tell a soul until after they're dead. Secrets leak out however, and that's when the fun starts.

Yes and no......Perhaps my problem is i choose not to hang around shady people or someone who i even think would be doing something so rash and insane as "recruitment" so maybe thats my problem...

. Actually I'd say, because you seem to be a pretty decent sod, you'd have your conscience giving you a harder time than those who may not be quite as scrupulous, you'd have worked out a way of dealing with the less pleasant stuff. Pat on head for that, mate.When you see awful things done and you have choices, who's to say your dice didn't roll right?

It sounds familliar...i think i read that in college for a paper i did...perhaps not.......Is that article still relevant? Prolly is...just dont know.

It's extremely relevant, because it's the central battle in the "Nature vs Nurture" war. Billions of dollars are at stake and so are careers, reputations and much more. Trust me on this one. Public legislation affecting millions hang off such matters.

I for one think no one has any excuse other to live up to their own actions. If someone is aware what they are doing is questionable and its only hurting themselves...i guess there isnt much i can do to help them if they already know. Sometimes i wish the addage was true about "my mother made me a homo"...then maybe i could get her to shut up about the old question "are you seeing anyone right now"?......."no?...well that probably for the best"! Love her and all but ARGH!

Delightful stuff - very funny. Good on you.

this reply has totaly confused me....I just said i didnt have a choice...i never knew any different (or at least when i hit puberty and knew what sex was and what i was attracted to)....so how does that make me a heretic that i actually believe i was born that way or at least didnt have the choice?

Like I said, the big war is over "Nature Vs Nurture". The ones who said "My sexual preferences are my own to make" are basically in the "Nurture" camp. This was the official reality whicxh was used to mask any other opinion because psychotherapy and all manner of other industries were involved. By the way, the AIDS industry is also a huge scam woth zillions and people are being literally murdered in its name for the sake of the profit margin - but that's another tale - Google up a researcher called Peter Duisberg for the big jaw-dropper.Today's theme is "I am born that way and I want my uniqueness respected" - basically the "Nature" camp. I happen to be in the nature camp and accept nature's capricious and arbitrary and cruel and unpredictable variations, but that's just me.

Your right it was a cheap shot...but i have seen it happen before. not to mention this is probably the first post of yours I have read. My appearance here has been spotty in the last year (maybe 2) so i know zero about you other than this post which obviously caught my eye. Since i have seen it before i figured it wouldnt hurt to ask,

No harm done, mate, I'm big enough & ugly enough to land on my feet in most things anyway.But I like the honest approach and response. Keep the ball rolling. Cheers!

[snafu]

Phuck! It's the Phantom! Nice work, mate.I am constantly on the "mangled word" bandwagon. If they were just misused by ignorant dickheads, it wouldn't be such a problem. The trouble is that a lot of malicious, cunning and politically motivated agendas are filled with this stuff. The big war is always against that creature that no one seems able to tolerate - the CRITIC. You can flatter anyone and they'll not be able to get enough. But utter a word of criticism and the roof falls in. Critics of Jews are always called Anti-Semites. Critics of Negroes or Aborigines are always called Racists. Critics of Muslims are called Racists as well, even though they're not a race. Critics of women are called Sexists. Critics of homosexuals are now addressed as Homophobes. The list goes on and on ad nauseam. The only ones you don't need a licence to criticise and are offered every free kick in the book are white heterosexual males. Therein endeth the lesson, Pilgrims. Cheers!

 

We'll if someone is critical of an entire race then they are racist. If they are critical of the entire religion of Jews, they are anti-Semitic. That's the defeniton of such. Critics of a sexual orientation is different. It's an act. I don't agree with them but it is different.

[Vortex]

Hear, hear! It's the stuf that doesn't get published that's really interesting. Usually (in politics) reporters sit on dynamite for most of their careers and can't tell a soul until after they're dead. Secrets leak out however, and that's when the fun starts.

Its not exactly dynomite...if they want dynomite they need to focus on the increase in drug use in the last 5 years...here i thought it declined majorly (and prolly has)...but some of the people who used to bitch about it with me are now so far deep they cant even figure out how to lie to me about it anymore....

 

Actually I'd say, because you seem to be a pretty decent sod, you'd have your conscience giving you a harder time than those who may not be quite as scrupulous, you'd have worked out a way of dealing with the less pleasant stuff. Pat on head for that, mate.When you see awful things done and you have choices, who's to say your dice didn't roll right?

ill say thank you to that...unless there was sarcasmn on the fingertips when you typed that...as words sometimes dont give sarcasm justice when inflections or audio isnt involved...

 

It's extremely relevant, because it's the central battle in the "Nature vs Nurture" war. Billions of dollars are at stake and so are careers, reputations and much more. Trust me on this one. Public legislation affecting millions hang off such matters.

for me personally, I could give a rats ass.... I know who I am...im about to become 33 years old and since im pretty level headed, and mostly logically minded i see no reason to fix it...especially when im happy......(yes even happy being alone with no clear horizon of finding a mate in the near or distant future)...Perhaps im too well adjusted for my own good lol....but more than likely im surely not...who knows...i have no psych degree..

 

Like I said, the big war is over "Nature Vs Nurture". The ones who said "My sexual preferences are my own to make" are basically in the "Nurture" camp. This was the official reality whicxh was used to mask any other opinion because psychotherapy and all manner of other industries were involved. By the way, the AIDS industry is also a huge scam woth zillions and people are being literally murdered in its name for the sake of the profit margin - but that's another tale - Google up a researcher called Peter Duisberg for the big jaw-dropper.Today's theme is "I am born that way and I want my uniqueness respected" - basically the "Nature" camp. I happen to be in the nature camp and accept nature's capricious and arbitrary and cruel and unpredictable variations, but that's just me.

I shall google that...but not tonight..i have to work 12 hours tomorow and in less than 7 hours so ill save that for when i have the time...

 

I think i was born that way....i see no other reason in my childhood or any other outword factors....my brother and sister are both straight(granted that is no gage whatsoever...) but as far as uniqueness goes...being gay isnt unique in the slightest(not arguing prolly agreeing)...but i should be respected as a human being with feelings and opinions yes!

 

Nature does all sorts of things to animals (humans included) and honestly i am starting to wonder and actually believe it has something to do with the fact that gay people are emerging in far greater numbers as to some sort of natural slowdown to the human population overgrowth...but i am no scientist...it just sounds logical..

 

 

oh and btw how close to the "camp" are you? Coming over to warm your hands, pleasant conversation...then back to your tent in another camp for bed...or is your tent close to the fire?.....

 

No harm done, mate, I'm big enough & ugly enough to land on my feet in most things anyway.But I like the honest approach and response. Keep the ball rolling. Cheers!

ugly to one is a fetish to another...never give up hope! Unless that was just a cheap joke to go along with my cheap jab

 

Salute!

 

We'll if someone is critical of an entire race then they are racist. If they are critical of the entire religion of Jews, they are anti-Semitic. That's the defeniton of such. Critics of a sexual orientation is different. It's an act. I don't agree with them but it is different.

being critical of anything that isnt close to home is all the same thing....if you dont know enough about something...but it isnt something you actually do..or think..then of course you wont agree.... Try having grown up with these feelings in you since puberty...and yet have everyone and most mothers tell you that your sick and wrong...when you never truely understand why they are wrong.....but then again everyone is entitled to their own opinion on every little aspect of life....its how they respect the opposite opinion that truely matters....

[Flatearther]

snafu wrote:

 

We'll if someone is critical of an entire race then they are racist. If they are critical of the entire religion of Jews, they are anti-Semitic. That's the defeniton of such.

 

Sorry, mate, you get a debate over that one. The word "Racist" is an abstract noun. Objectively it means nothing.Politically, it's a slur word, an insult and it's a backhander and a substitute for physical violence.It is intended to terminate the risk of any discussion or explanation. It is absolute and fundamentalist in intent and substance. To justify that word you would need to establish what a 'racist' does, says, thinks and most importantly belongs to. A "Communist" makes sense, as does a Buddhist, because they state their position and their intentions and they are clearly labeled and identified. . I have never heard of an academic faculty called 'Racism". It does not exist. The term 'Critic" however, makes immediate sense. Whether the criticism is done through malice or a demonstrably legitemate complaint process is the important thing. Criticism invites explanation and and negotiation. "Racism" - never. Apply the same formula to the other words (Anti-Semitism Homophobia) and compare the resasoning. The slur weapons are used for exactly that purpose. To inflict damage. Cheers!

[Flatearther]

Vortex, mate - we're both singing from the same songbook. I'm not exactly prone to be accused of any 'subtlety'. Rest assured, if I was going to insult someone, they'd be just as aware of it as they would be if they'd been run over by a tractor. I like your style. Cheers!

[Vortex]

Vortex, mate - we're both singing from the same songbook. I'm not exactly prone to be accused of any 'subtlety'. Rest assured, if I was going to insult someone, they'd be just as aware of it as they would be if they'd been run over by a tractor. I like your style. Cheers!

 

I aim to please....(perhaps i should rephrase that)...

 

but not to much ticks me off anymore....other than random idiots that pass me by......but not enough to go blogging about it that much or what have you....

 

Salute!

[Flatearther]

Just remember - things have a tendency to be the way they are. Cheers!

[Vortex]

Just remember - things have a tendency to be the way they are. Cheers!

 

Too bad we are powerless to change much of anything beyond those that are directly around you!

[Flatearther]

Too bad we are powerless to change much of anything beyond those that are directly around you!

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

[hugo]

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

 

Exploitation? That's a liberal word. Which specific laws were changed?

[Vortex]

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

 

Thats all good and fine..and i have no problem being a whistle blower...i Do it constantly (weather at work...granted now im the one people whistle blow too becomming a manager...or even at play seeing a fight or something and telling how it "really went down")...

 

But to change everyones opinions of everything is a hard thing to do....I suppose if i wrote a great novel like the bible in the time that it was written life would have been different...

 

Shrug i cant really judge anyone in what they do in their free time...as long as im not the one suffering the consequences i could care less (nor if anyone is getting hurt either)...

 

People now just cant leave good enough alone...they have to meddle in everyones business....I have a problem with that...what works for one person doesnt work for another...

 

apparently that isnt a universal opinion

[Flatearther]

Exploitation? That's a liberal word. Which specific laws were changed?

 

Just take your finger off the 'Communist" or "Socialist" trigger and put the hardware down. I'm actually on your side. The quality of your comment, hence the quality of the reply it deserves rests on the assumption that either:

 

a: You have not read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes Of Wrath" and are ignorant of the labor laws (esp in California) and in particular the things that could be and were done to the itinerant workers and the dispossessed of Oklahoma. In which case you might find it beneficial to dig out and compare the lot of people after publication of Steinbeck's work.

 

b: You have read Steinbeck's novel, are familiar with the differences in the labor laws before and after publication and couldn't give a fig except as a cheap excuse for a cheap jibe and even cheaper argument. Failing that, you could actually check out the story behind my headline comment.I'd just love it if you concluded that Steinbecks whistleblow changed nothing. Crow tastes just fine with humble pie. I do look forward to your deep analysis and the investigative potency of your sincere inquiry. Cheers!

[Flatearther]

Vortex wrote:

 

But to change everyones opinions of everything is a hard thing to do...

 

Not just hard - impossible. Even Hitler didn't try a takeover in a single day. Smart operators change the course of a large ship one degree at a time. Try it - one opinion, then another. It gets better each time. Cheers!

[hugo]

Just take your finger off the 'Communist" or "Socialist" trigger and put the hardware down. I'm actually on your side. The quality of your comment, hence the quality of the reply it deserves rests on the assumption that either:

 

a: You have not read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes Of Wrath" and are ignorant of the labor laws (esp in California) and in particular the things that could be and were done to the itinerant workers and the dispossessed of Oklahoma. In which case you might find it beneficial to dig out and compare the lot of people after publication of Steinbeck's work.

 

b: You have read Steinbeck's novel, are familiar with the differences in the labor laws before and after publication and couldn't give a fig except as a cheap excuse for a cheap jibe and even cheaper argument. Failing that, you could actually check out the story behind my headline comment.I'd just love it if you concluded that Steinbecks whistleblow changed nothing. Crow tastes just fine with humble pie. I do look forward to your deep analysis and the investigative potency of your sincere inquiry. Cheers!

 

Never answered my question. There are only two Marxists here and you definitely ain't one of them.