Pages: 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 30

 

Poll

Do you agree with the gay marriage approval in California?

Yes67%67% - 112
No27%27% - 45
I don't know0%0% - 0
Plead the fifth3%3% - 5
Other? (Please State)1%1% - 3
Total: 165
2015-09-04 08:15:08
uziq
Member
+493|3667

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:


They're as normal as people with Downs Syndrome.


I hope you know all this repressed disgust about fat couples is going to express itself in your son when he comes out at age 14. that's textbook psychology. he's going to kickback against his father figure and superego.
Sure, and then he'll become me in his 20s
you don't choose your sexuality like a pair of shoes.

also how like your father are you? sons and fathers seldom follow one another without major coercion or repression. sorry jay but your son is going to be going down to Chelsea and having the time of his life. he'll probably be at a drama school as well.
2015-09-04 08:17:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:




I hope you know all this repressed disgust about fat couples is going to express itself in your son when he comes out at age 14. that's textbook psychology. he's going to kickback against his father figure and superego.
Sure, and then he'll become me in his 20s
you don't choose your sexuality like a pair of shoes.

also how like your father are you? sons and fathers seldom follow one another without major coercion or repression. sorry jay but your son is going to be going down to Chelsea and having the time of his life. he'll probably be at a drama school as well.
Maybe, and that's fine. I said I personally find gay buttsex to be disgusting, I never said I had a problem with it philosophically or wanted to ban it. If my son ends up being gay, will I be disappointed? Sure, that's pretty normal. But I'll get over it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 08:24:54
uziq
Member
+493|3667
about three times now you've made appeals to 'normal' when in fact what you mean is 'my preference'.
2015-09-04 08:32:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

about three times now you've made appeals to 'normal' when in fact what you mean is 'my preference'.
Well, yeah, and also the preference of approximately 90% of the population. Generally, what appeals to the majority is "normal".

Are you about to get your marxist sociological panties in a twist?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 08:39:43
uziq
Member
+493|3667
I don't think sexuality or gender are these fixed absolutes so I don't know how methodically you'd go about measuring that statistic. I also don't know why the majority denotes 'normal' in human behaviour and diverse traits. that isn't how behaviour works. by that basis it would be 'normal' to be Chinese or Indian and abnormal to be American. like what the fuck does that even mean.

and besides, with our discussion of liberalism, the whole point is that it's pluralistic, not populistic. you've been decrying the mass opinion and empty crowd following for the last 3 pages and now you're arguing for your views on homosexuality because of... erm. you judge democracy by how it looks after its statistical minorities. that's because they aim for a universal human value. if you find it acceptable to tag a 10% of the population as behaviourally 'abnormal', you're not a liberal. you're a bigot. that's fine just stop professing to be the disinterested voice of reason, rising above crowd irrationalism.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 08:41:49)

2015-09-04 08:46:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

I don't think sexuality or gender are these fixed absolutes so I don't know how methodically you'd go about measuring that statistic. I also don't know why the majority denotes 'normal' in human behaviour and diverse traits. that isn't how behaviour works. by that basis it would be 'normal' to be Chinese or Indian and abnormal to be American. like what the fuck does that even mean.

and besides, with our discussion of liberalism, the whole point is that it's pluralistic, not populistic. you've been decrying the mass opinion and empty crowd following for the last 3 pages and now you're arguing for your views on homosexuality because of... erm. you judge democracy by how it looks after its statistical minorities. that's because they aim for a universal human value. if you find it acceptable to tag a 10% of the population as behaviourally 'abnormal', you're not a liberal. you're a bigot. that's fine just stop professing to be the disinterested voice of reason, rising above crowd irrationalism.
Hmm? One could easily argue that homosexuality is irrational due to there being no path to procreation (less so for lesbians who just need a sperm donor). It is, after all, our evolutionary imperative to pass along our genes. The supposed celibacy of Catholic priests is equally irrational in my eyes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 08:54:04
uziq
Member
+493|3667
no you couldn't argue it's irrational. we have sex for pleasure. just like we play for pleasure. they are near essential aspects of our species. humans have sex for fun. various societies at different points in long history have adopted different attitudes. normally they are tied to some underlying economic or domestic arrangement, I.e. property owning patriarchy with a strong stress on primogeniture and inheritance/succession tends to stigmatise homosexuality. but there have been civilisations that are poly amorous and make no distinction between heterosexual or homosexual love. you get horny and you fuck what you find attractive. if a human being finds another of the same sex attractive, is that irrational? from the perspective of strictly genetic or Darwinist science, half the shit we do is irrational. there's no evolutionary purpose to us sitting here arguing. it's such a fucking stupid and misapplied paradigm of thought that I don't even know how to engage with it. like, yeah, somehow deep down in the lesbian mind there's the knowledge that they can get a sperm donor, therefore their brain rationally allows their attraction. lol for fucks sake. please read a book.

human behaviour is massively varied and complex. normativity falls under sociology, not evolutionary biology. you are making a category error. our attitudes to (non-procreative) sex are socially conditioned. and that is historically contingent. you appeal to a 'normal' as if homosexuality is abnormal. it isn't. it's as old as time itself. sure it will be a statistical minority, but then so is the number of people who like fishing as a percentage of the overall population. it doesn't denote abnormality.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 08:55:53)

2015-09-04 08:55:42
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3934

uziq wrote:

I don't think sexuality or gender are these fixed absolutes so I don't know how methodically you'd go about measuring that statistic.
I think the amount of men who have either had a one off gay experience or feelings or irrational admiration for a friend or other male is probably higher than 10%. Kissing a guy on a dare at a party or being completely overwhelmed by admiration and excitement when you meet a man who you look up to is obviously pretty far removed form blowing a guy at his apartment on a Sunday afternoon. But I think it is still the vein of comfortableness that people have with each other that is normal. After all, sex is just too people who care about each other trying to make themselves and the other feel nice and release some brain chemicals. It ain't rocket science or calculus.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-09-04 09:00:24
uziq
Member
+493|3667

SuperJail Warden wrote:

uziq wrote:

I don't think sexuality or gender are these fixed absolutes so I don't know how methodically you'd go about measuring that statistic.
I think the amount of men who have either had a one off gay experience or feelings or irrational admiration for a friend or other male is probably higher than 10%. Kissing a guy on a dare at a party or being completely overwhelmed by admiration and excitement when you meet a man who you look up to is obviously pretty far removed form blowing a guy at his apartment on a Sunday afternoon. But I think it is still the vein of comfortableness that people have with each other that is normal. After all, sex is just too people who care about each other trying to make themselves and the other feel nice and release some brain chemicals. It ain't rocket science or calculus.
the ancient Greeks were perfectly comfortable with this male on male attraction. it was seen as virtuous and manly, to be assertive and comfortable. ancient Athenian society had brad Pitt style pinups (e.g. Alcibiades) that all the men wanted to drink and fraternise with. they'd have fierce philosophical debates and think nothing wrong with hooking up with the guy in the ensuing heated debate, with the attraction and charisma involved.

but jay will argue homoeroticism or sexuality is 'abnormal'. it's been with us for as long as anthropological history can account for. the fact that homosexual behaviour or play occurs in the animal kingdom, in NATURE, should be the last word in the stupid 'normal' debate. not every sexual function is the blind gene screaming to procreate. we're not mechanical automatons. sex for pleasure, as you say, involves a whole dopaminergic circuit of pleasure and reward. it's stimulating and compulsive in its own end. no cod-Darwinism necessary.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 09:02:59)

2015-09-04 09:07:32
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

no you couldn't argue it's irrational. we have sex for pleasure. just like we play for pleasure. they are near essential aspects of our species. humans have sex for fun. various societies at different points in long history have adopted different attitudes. normally they are tied to some underlying economic or domestic arrangement, I.e. property owning patriarchy with a strong stress on primogeniture and inheritance/succession tends to stigmatise homosexuality. but there have been civilisations that are poly amorous and make no distinction between heterosexual or homosexual love. you get horny and you fuck what you find attractive. if a human being finds another of the same sex attractive, is that irrational? from the perspective of strictly genetic or Darwinist science, half the shit we do is irrational. there's no evolutionary purpose to us sitting here arguing. it's such a fucking stupid and misapplied paradigm of thought that I don't even know how to engage with it. like, yeah, somehow deep down in the lesbian mind there's the knowledge that they can get a sperm donor, therefore their brain rationally allows their attraction. lol for fucks sake. please read a book.

human behaviour is massively varied and complex. normativity falls under sociology, not evolutionary biology. you are making a category error. our attitudes to (non-procreative) sex are socially conditioned. and that is historically contingent. you appeal to a 'normal' as if homosexuality is abnormal. it isn't. it's as old as time itself. sure it will be a statistical minority, but then so is the number of people who like fishing as a percentage of the overall population. it doesn't denote abnormality.
Why is it you like to brag about the women you've been with but never the men?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:10:01
uziq
Member
+493|3667
because I haven't been with any men. why are you made so uncomfortable by reasoned argument that contradicts you that you have to relapse to the 'lol fag' retorts of your ghetto upbringing? were you molested by your father? did the other GI's dicks make you feel awkward in the barrack showers?
2015-09-04 09:10:33
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

because I haven't been with any men. why are you made so uncomfortable by reasoned argument that contradicts you that you have to relapse to the 'lol fag' retorts of your ghetto upbringing? were you molested by your father? did the other GI's dicks make you feel awkward in the barrack showers?
Why haven't you been with any men?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:13:13
uziq
Member
+493|3667
because I'm not attracted to men, it's a fairly simple decision making process. do i think I'm more 'normal' than someone who has a different orientation? nope. am I disgusted by the thought of two gay guys giving one another a good time in private? no I'm not.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 09:14:03)

2015-09-04 09:17:20
uziq
Member
+493|3667
have you ever fucked your wife in the ass jay? ever experimented? ever let her lick your balls and asshole? ever 69'd? what about the physical act disgusts you if you're willing to do it with your wife?

I have a theory that the recent prominence of eating ass in hip-hop/rap music culture has done wonders for leavening the horrible masculine homophobia prevalent within the black community. there are a lot of young black guys discovering the refined pleasure of eating a nice chicks asshole, and hating gays a lot less for their private pleasures as a result.
2015-09-04 09:17:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

because I'm not attracted to men, it's a fairly simple decision making process. do i think I'm more 'normal' than someone who has a different orientation? nope. am I disgusted by the thought of two gay guys giving one another a good time in private? no I'm not.
Why not? The ancient Greeks did it. Don't you want a Daniel Craig poster on your bedroom ceiling?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:18:01
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+640|3934

uziq wrote:

because I haven't been with any men. why are you made so uncomfortable by reasoned argument that contradicts you that you have to relapse to the 'lol fag' retorts of your ghetto upbringing? were you molested by your father? did the other GI's dicks make you feel awkward in the barrack showers?
Well, male on male rape is actually a pretty big issue in the military.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/27/same- … -the-rise/
All that testosterone and sweat could make things weird.
https://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt8x6wNF391qh59n0o6_250.gif
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
2015-09-04 09:22:05
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,741|6952|Oxferd Ohire
I wouldn't mind a Steve McQueen poster.
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2015-09-04 09:22:08
uziq
Member
+493|3667

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

because I'm not attracted to men, it's a fairly simple decision making process. do i think I'm more 'normal' than someone who has a different orientation? nope. am I disgusted by the thought of two gay guys giving one another a good time in private? no I'm not.
Why not? The ancient Greeks did it. Don't you want a Daniel Craig poster on your bedroom ceiling?
the point is obviously lost on your puerile mind. human beings are socialised by their environment and times. the reason you're so afraid of gay people is the result of 200 years of mealy-mouthed Protestant culture that championed capital accumulation and practiced a cult of body-hate, a theological ban on sensuous pleasures. sex for anything other than duty and amorous relationships for anything other than marriage/property acquisition was sinful. this is why as a child you were socialised with the word 'faggot' as a pejorative, as an insult to your (acquisitive, virtuous) masculinity. you're a product of your environment. other societies have been different and their behaviours and expression have resultingly been different, too.

I'm sorry that you still live in fear of certain groups, and that some aspects of life confuse or frighten you. I really do mean that. I pity you. what a burden it must be to worry about what other people do for fun. where do you find the time?
2015-09-04 09:24:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England
It's one thing to accept something intellectually, another thing to accept something on a more personal level. I'm quite ok with legalizing drugs. What people do to their body and their life is on them. Do I look down on people who need to escape reality like that? I do. But I'm not going to lecture them or try to take away their toys. I've also never advocated repressing gay people. Do I find the act repulsive? Yes. But again, I'm not going to stick my nose in their business and tell them they're wrong.

I don't think this is unreasonable.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:30:41
uziq
Member
+493|3667
again you keep claiming to be the noble voice of reason and just voice your prejudices. people who take drugs are just pathetic creatures trying to escape reality. okay. gay couples are fine and all but, jeez, they're not normal are they? you sound so parochial. stop claiming to be this supra-intelligent being who sees through the hordes of moron on Facebook when all you do is spout prejudices and biases that form you at the very fibre. you have a particular slant on reality just as anyone else does.

and, yet again, to make the point a third time: the beauty of so called 'liberal orthodoxy' is that it lets everyone with their little kooky dislikes and disgusts get along with minimal friction, let alone outbreaks of tribal/factional tension – if not outright force. you complain about how people unthinkingly follow liberal ideals, but what you don't realise is that the orthodoxy they subscribe to is partly there to PROTECT our civil society from the unthinking biases that drive you (and everyone else). it's ironic and sort of cute. you think you're being so smart and magnanimous in identifying liberalism's ills, but its main goal is to promote a tolerance and a pluralism that your own petty biases push up against. to the extent that you do accept gay people and their nominal equality, that's all to liberalism's credit, not your own warped little mind, which falls frankly way short of the liberal ideal. you should be thankful. you don't deserve the society you enjoy.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 09:34:14)

2015-09-04 09:33:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

because I'm not attracted to men, it's a fairly simple decision making process. do i think I'm more 'normal' than someone who has a different orientation? nope. am I disgusted by the thought of two gay guys giving one another a good time in private? no I'm not.
Why not? The ancient Greeks did it. Don't you want a Daniel Craig poster on your bedroom ceiling?
the point is obviously lost on your puerile mind. human beings are socialised by their environment and times. the reason you're so afraid of gay people is the result of 200 years of mealy-mouthed Protestant culture that championed capital accumulation and practiced a cult of body-hate, a theological ban on sensuous pleasures. sex for anything other than duty and amorous relationships for anything other than marriage/property acquisition was sinful. this is why as a child you were socialised with the word 'faggot' as a pejorative, as an insult to your (acquisitive, virtuous) masculinity. you're a product of your environment. other societies have been different and their behaviours and expression have resultingly been different, too.

I'm sorry that you still live in fear of certain groups, and that some aspects of life confuse or frighten you. I really do mean that. I pity you. what a burden it must be to worry about what other people do for fun. where do you find the time?
Sorry kid, but you're wrong. It was completely normal for those of us growing up in the 90s to call stuff gay, to call people fags, it was a generational thing, not a poverty thing. You're simply part of the Post-Pedro Generation when it became uncool to gay-bash and you've been indoctrinated by the media differently than I was. Congratulations? You're part of the kinder, softer generation full of helicopter parents and participation awards. Sorry you got hosed. Blame your parents.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:36:50
uziq
Member
+493|3667
keep calling me a kid, jay, I think it's fairly obvious to anyone observing that I am wiping the floor with your futile mind in this debate.
2015-09-04 09:46:24
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

keep calling me a kid, jay, I think it's fairly obvious to anyone observing that I am wiping the floor with your futile mind in this debate.
No, you're really not. What you did was spout the party line regarding normalcy and gays throughout history. That's fine. When confronted with your own sexuality and your own desires, you shriveled away and gave me a PC answer.

What you've done since this little exercise started is talking past me at arguments I haven't been making.

I totally agree that I'm bigoted and biased. So is everyone else on this planet. I've had conversations with gay men before that contain the same disgust for heterosexual sex that I've displayed here for homosexual sex. As in "eww, I can't believe you would ever eat pussy, that's fucking disgusting". Is that offensive? Or is only offensive when it comes from a white, straight, male like me? I think I know the answer.

You've gone on about rationality and the greatness of liberalism but you've spent multiple pages now trying to talk down to me and calling me an idiot for having an opinion you disagree with. I think we both know that I'm not less intelligent than you are, but yet you go on and on and on as if I'm going to just bow down and go away. Tedious.

But, good job dodging the ableist label a page back, I was going to have fun with that one.

Last edited by Jay (2015-09-04 09:47:21)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2015-09-04 09:53:24
uziq
Member
+493|3667
oh god a rant about "PC". yes I'm so PC for not being revulsed and disgusted by homosexual sex. and yes, pointing out that normativity is a social construct rather than some evolutionary iron law of the universe is 'the party line'. haha.

also being in favour of liberalism doesn't mean one should suffer fools gladly. for the last two pages you've been asking me why don't I go suck a dick if I love fags so much, and now you accuse me of elitism. not exactly the NYU debating society is it, jay?

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 09:55:20)

2015-09-04 10:04:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5573|London, England

uziq wrote:

oh god a rant about "PC". yes I'm so PC for not being revulsed and disgusted by homosexual sex. and yes, pointing out that normativity is a social construct rather than some evolutionary iron law of the universe is 'the party line'. haha.

also being in favour of liberalism doesn't mean one should suffer fools gladly. for the last two pages you've been asking me why don't I go suck a dick if I love fags so much, and now you accuse me of elitism. not exactly the NYU debating society is it, jay?
Normal is entirely relativist. I never said otherwise. I'm also not denying that I was molded in large part by the puritanical leanings of this country. So what? At least I'm honest about my opinions instead of hiding them. Remember, I'm not a WASP, I don't do the polite insincerity thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 30

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard