Protect Our Children PLEASE Read

awyala said:
Laws change. Majorities become minorities and visa versa. Your logic is impeccable...."shut up because you're the minority, don't question the law". As usual I am in awe of your inability to appreciate flexibility or render intepretation in the legal system.
Click to expand...

Yep, law changed... away from your stupid opinion.

I didn't say you can't question the law, I just said your opinion doesn't matter because its stupid, and society realized it was stupid and the law was changed so that your stupid opinion is not the law.

clear enough for you?
 
rashidme said:
why can't they have extra math or physics courses instead of this crap!!!
Click to expand...

Because school is for preparing them for life, and there's more to life than just the three "R's". What I can't stand are school spirit days and that kind of crap.
 
OpenGambit said:
Yep, law changed... away from your stupid opinion.

I didn't say you can't question the law, I just said your opinion doesn't matter because its stupid, and society realized it was stupid and the law was changed so that your stupid opinion is not the law.

clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

Not quite. Explain how laws come into and out of season please, I mean as a lawyer, enlighten us as to how certain taboos become, cease and then become again acceptable. I am extremely curious to know your legal historical reasoning behind how homosexuality was against the law for centuries, while being once accepted prior, and yet how it has become accepted again.

Please enlighten us how my "stupid opinion" became considered to be stupid.....for those others out there who might not know how the history of the status quo came to be and just dogmatically accept it today. I hardly doubt you would have been the progressive type back when the majority felt my view was not so stupid. You strike me as the type that would fight tooth and nail for the status quo as inked into the law books. I don't see you fighting for zoophile rights these days. I don't see you fighting for incest rights, or polygamous rights. But then again maybe you are. Feel free to confirm or deny. But you're the type to side step it, and enforce only what is agreed upon by the majority. You don't distinguish between right and wrong, merely enforce. Oh and you dismiss the opinion of others in your usual fashion rather than debate. Tell us again how you don't care to inform anyone, rather merely state what is the law. Buddy you don't have an opinion either way, and you would enforce the majority's opinion however stupid it was.

Develop an idea or principle of your own and then chime in, when you have something to contribute.
 
caboose483 said:
It was on page 1.

Now it's FR.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

The advice against going FR is for the purpose of winning an award for acting. If you're out to be accepted by the masses and win mainstream awards, by all means, "never go FR".

If one was inclined toward praise and acceptance in a thread, then a superficial comedic one liner would be the way to go.
 
awyala said:
The advice against going FR is for the purpose of winning an award for acting. If you're out to be accepted by the masses and win mainstream awards, by all means, "never go FR".

If one was inclined toward praise and acceptance in a thread, then a superficial comedic one liner would be the way to go.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the thread has in fact gone FR, and that it's a good thing?

Just trying to get some clarity here.
 
awyala said:
I have heard and read the same, however I am not entirely convinced for several reasons. One being much of our nature can be overcome with our highly flexible and developed intellects. The human has the ability to override nature and evolution for that matter. We have an enormous capacity to due this due to choice and predictive reasoning. Men have a variety of instincts we supress for social long term benifitial reasons. We also do things seamingly counter to our instinct, namely fruitless high risk activities.

Some examples of male sexual traits:
Promiscuity, polygamy, rape. Though these are not exclusive to males they tend to be overwhelmingly characterised by males. Why is this? And why does society impose restrictions on this seemingly natural behaviour. The "born this way" argument isnt strong enough to permit this behaviour. So in our society we force conformity based on rationale reason based prediction of short and long term net effects. We may grant allowances or leniency on the basis of lack of culpabilty, but none the less certain behaviours are not tolerated for a whole other basis than genetics.

I don't buy for a second behaviour is that fixed among humans. A predisposition to alcohol is rather defined as a predisposition to addiction. This "preference" for a substance which is almost entirely man made is ridiculous to imply, but the predisposition to addiction is a much more base trait which could be genetic. Even so this can be overcome rather than be an enslaving biological mechanism.

The argument that homosexuality is a genetic trait is one that absolves one of responsibility for a choice they made, but why bother pursuing this very weak argument when you believe no short or long term harm is being done?

The genetic argument is moot no? Who cares why you do it if it has no net negative result?
Click to expand...
Dude, I'm having a VERY hard time trying to follow your argument. You're an eloquent guy...but you're all over the place. It seems like you're making a point for rape being an instinct that we can suppress, then lumping in homosexuality as an instinct after spending all your time proving that rape is an instinct.
 
fastar1 said:
So are you saying that the thread has in fact gone FR, and that it's a good thing?

Just trying to get some clarity here.
Click to expand...

FR was of course a joke about over committing to one's role as an actor, for it loses the the respect of the Academy Awards. Somehow acting like a full retard loses the viewer. It must ultimately be brought back to a base line, which is of course the message of the medium. With film the medium is entertainment, and no one wants to watch a full on display of the best rendition of a retard.

Hence the joke....that the actor was over committing.

Is this thread over committed? For some yes! This forum is ultimately for the purpose of discussing motorcycles. But then again, a lot of threads are spawned and exhausted with little to no reference to motorcycles.

Is this forum restricted to entertainment alone? Quite possibly. In that case delete the thread, cause as it stands, the opening of the subject was "full retard" in the first place.

But once it has been opened and accepted, why be limited by a deliberate cap on the depth of the discussion? To what end?

So at this stage I say, go FR, because it has already passed the point of motorcycles and entertainment.

Debate and discussing hot topic issues is not for the purpose of winning friends and entertainment, it is for the purpose of growth and resolution. In this sense, one should not be shy to go "FR". But if one is more concerned with appearing acceptable, then by all means, keep one's quips short, superficial and comically snarky.
 
knowledge said:
Dude, I'm having a VERY hard time trying to follow your argument. You're an eloquent guy...but you're all over the place. It seems like you're making a point for rape being an instinct that we can suppress, then lumping in homosexuality as an instinct after spending all your time proving that rape is an instinct.
Click to expand...

My point is that there are many things we can perceive as instinct. We currently hold the belief in this society that homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic predisposition, i.e. instinct. If this is the case, the case must also be made for other predispositions and instincts. One of them should be rape. The markedly higher rate of violent rape, and even non-violent rape among men as compared to women is a telling sign of a trend. Is this trend then genetic, a predisposition? I am not arguing it is. What I am suggesting is that the logic to include certain sexual behaviours in the realm of instinct be applied across the board, or at least critically reviewed.

So why do men rape? Why markedly more than women? Why is sex associated with violence far too often in war? There are a whole host of questions to explore. Whether rape is found to be a genetic tendency among males is actually neither here nor there in my view. The act, whether instinct or not should be totally forbidden, as with paedophilia.

If these acts are a result of choice, well then culpability can be determined and a punishment administered. If however these acts have the offender free of culpability (due to consequence rather than choice), an alternative method of rectification is employed (mental institution rather than prison for example). In either case, the act cannot be condoned.

Where an instinct is so ingrained that a human cannot resist an urge to commit an act....such as goose bumps, reflex yawning, laughing, birth contractions, it is of course unreasonable to hold someone liable. In the above cases there is nothing to hold liable of course, but in the example of a "fight or flight" adrenaline reflex, it becomes difficult to hold someone liable for an instinctive unsuppressable action.

There is a sliding scale of instinctive human behaviour of course. And though laughing is instinctive and unique to humans, we are able to control it or temper it in various social contexts. We don't break out laughing at a funeral. Though giggle fits do occur we are also able to realize when they can be inappropriate.

My point is, there exist various levels of instinct within our nature, from autoresponses to mere preferences. Depending on the level of possible control and measure of harm caused, culpability and correctional measures are agreed upon through common societal norms / laws.

If we are to classify homosexuality as an immutable predisposition what do we say of other preferences, tendencies or deviations from the norm manifested in sexual behaviour? The argument that homosexuality is not a choice is moot if it were determined that homosexuality were destructive to society in the long term. Well not entirely moot, but it wouldn't be the smoking gun to grant its widespread mainstream acceptance.

If homosexuality were lets say 2 on the scale of choice (0 being total uncontrollable instinct) and lets say 10 on the scale of harm (0 being no long or short term harm, 10 being extreme short term harm), then regardless of the degree of choice, the action would not be permitted. Think of the run away stampeding circus elephant scenario. Sure the elephant is ****** off, sure it is its instinct to rage and stampede due to its forced captivity, but we still shoot it dead for running amok in our streets. The behaviour simply cannot be tolerated. I am not comparing homosexuals to rampaging elephants, just citing an example to convey the point.

So consider the 2 factors when it comes to any action....a matrix of degree of choice and degree of harm.

So let's review rape for example, and the scales are debatable of course:

9 on the choice scale (let's say the dude was lonely and caught up in the fog of war) combined with 9 on the harm scale (let's save 10 for murder). Pretty heinous...hang the bastard.

But imagine it was successfully argued that the rape instinct was more like 4 (rather uncontrollable but not a full on automated response) and let's leave the harm factor at 9. How do we treat this in our society? Do we castrate them? What would we do with an individual who has Down's Syndrome and committed an murder? Are we not disgusted when in Texas they still hang them?

To argue that homosexuality has no harmful effects in the long term, nor is it controllable in any way is false. It fits somewhere on the 2 scales. This is the debate. Though not the debate at the moment and not the subject of this thread. My precise view on that is not what I am getting into, but rather THERE IS a difference of opinion and the school system is not the place to bring that debate to the fore.

Some would and have argued my opinions are stupid and 100 years out of date. So be it, they are within their rights to feel that way. But as I did not start the thread, open the topic in the media, and as this debate is hotly contested by the world's leading power between its 2 political parties, I am hardly alone.

"Stupid" seems relative to mass opinion, because a stupid comment in agreement with homosexuality will receive praise, but a thought out comment against it will receive insult.

So has the debate really been silenced? Is it conclusive 100% in scientific circles that homosexual behaviour is 100% genetically predisposed and that there is no choice in the matter? Has it been concluded 100% that there are no societal long term affects of openly accepted homosexuality? If so please point me to these studies. Likewise, it is fair to ask whether the converse is the case, hence the validity of the DEBATE. It is well and alive.

PS I place the instinct of the need for sex and companionship much lower on the scale of choice than I do the object of that action. Couple that baseline instinct with certain conditions and the human being exhibits varying manifestations of sexuality. Many different "muses" have sufficed, from hands, dolls, animals, children, subs, masters, and the list goes on and on! To argue that one object preference is beyond self control while others are controllable is fallacy. To not conduct an exhaustive scientific review of all forms of sexual attraction is not comprehensive and betrays the scientific method, rather it suits a social agenda. To teach children there not 2 but rather 6 sexes is quite definitive, yet the science IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. Why stop at 6? Why not determine we are omni sexual? We are infinitely sexually flexible and we determine suitability by net positive / harmful effects? FFS what do we do about washrooms in the building code, make 6 different washroom types, or have 1 "Alley McBeal" archetype? My suggestion is to conduct further investigation before enshrining an unsettled ongoing debate in the education system.

"I'm born that way" is a title for a pop song, it is not a valid argument to sanction any action!
 
Last edited:
We get it... you don't agree with open acceptance of homosexuality. You don't have to write a novel to tell us that.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom