News:

And if you've misplaced your penis, never fear. This forum is full of dicks.

Main Menu

Opinions Wanted

Started by hooplala, December 15, 2009, 05:07:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cainad (dec.)

Quote from: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.


rygD

Quote from: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."



THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.



I feel the same way with what you are saying on genetics.  As for the rest, I strongly agree with that, as well.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Fuquad

Quote from: rygD on December 16, 2009, 09:54:12 PM
Wouldn't serial killers then be beneficial when there is an over abundance of workers in an area?  Perhaps, from a population control perspective, they would be even more beneficial if they only kill heterosexuals.
As there is more to a person than their status as a worker I find it hard to agree that killing workers is beneficial.

I'm also not convinced that sociopaths and psychotics are going to kill in societies optimal benefit.
THE WORST FORUM ON THE INTERNET

rygD

When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.

I was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders. 

I think I might have missed your point, though.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Elder Iptuous

Quote from: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...

Fuquad

#110
Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AM
When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.
I'm not evaluating a worker purely as a resource to be exploited. Nor am I merely looking at statistics. And those other things that you are wanting to ignore in order to do so may be those very things that are of a greater benefit to society than the capacity as a "worker".

Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AMI was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders.
So you see fear and distrust as things that make society stronger or are you unaware of what impact even just one murder can have in a society let alone a string of them? Those that were in Seattle when Zapata was murdered can tell exactly what impact that had on the scene. About the part in bold: By your own admission you are doing that by completely ignoring any other benefit to society that person may have.


Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AMI think I might have missed your point, though.
You missed that homosexuality is not like serial killing?
THE WORST FORUM ON THE INTERNET

GreaseMonkey

Quote from: Hoopla on December 15, 2009, 05:07:20 PM
At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

This happened in a class I took in college.  I studied antho and was trying to get some gen eds out of the way and took a sociology class.  Boy, talk about the wrong environment to say such a thing.  I am not homophobic.  But strictly looking at reproduction and advancing your genes, it isn't ideal to be gay.  Granted, you can have a surrogate these days and still reproduce.  But animal instinct is about advancing our own genes.  We choose mates that we find attractive in some way in order to reproduce, whether we do or not is another discussion. 
I know what you meant, but I think it just wasn't worded correctly.  And with some people once you misstep with them, they don't let you explain your true meaning.
I would say that your co-worker is the one who crossed the line with the name calling.  If this happened at work, they would be in bigger shit for calling you a homophobe.

Triple Zero

Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.


hooplala

"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Template

Quote from: Iptuous on December 17, 2009, 02:28:16 AM
I think something I kind of mentioned, yet hasn't been stated head on, is the possibility that homosexuality as genetic coding has not really been proven.

That said, I am of the firm opinion that IT SHOULDN'T FUCKING MATTER WHETHER OR NOT GENETICS MAKES A MAN WANT TO SUCK COCK, OR A WOMAN TO EAT PUSSY.  The physical and emotional attachments one human has for another is not dictated by God, and it shouldn't bother anyone except the people involved in the relationship.  In a way, it seems to be edging close to some sort of apologetics to "explain" homosexuality by saying "oh, they can't help it, they were born that way."


THERE'S NOTHING TO HELP, FUCKOS.



LMNO
- Boys, boys, boys.

Hear, hear.  The Declaration of Independence, for example, asserts a right to pursuit of happiness.  Not solely genetically-defined/inherited happiness.  Nor conditioned happiness, nor Really Real Happiness (TM).  Knowing the exact cause(es) of homosexuality wouldn't mitigate the wrongness of forbidding it(s expression).


Quote from: LMNO on December 16, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
IAWTP
....
but what ... if there is some fellow who is attracted to other men, but wants to be straight (for whatever reason)...  is there something to 'help' at that point? is it his desires that should be 'helped', or his desire to change his desires that should be 'helped'?
certainly there is some problem in that scenario...

Ah.  The problem is not the subject's sexual preferences.  It's his attachment to labels in forming his identity.  And you call yourself a discordian.

rygD

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on December 17, 2009, 03:06:26 AM
Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AM
When evaluating the benefit to society of a worker purely as a resource to be exploited, I think the other things would likely be ignored, as we are looking merely at statistics.
I'm not evaluating a worker purely as a resource to be exploited. Nor am I merely looking at statistics. And those other things that you are wanting to ignore in order to do so may be those very things that are of a greater benefit to society than the capacity as a "worker".

Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AMI was only trying to point out that it might be helpful to reduce the number of people who are using up limited resources while unable to provide anything for society, when dealing with overpopulation.  Someone who is removing these people from the population may have a positive impact on the whole of the society, regardless of their intentions, especially if they were only killing breeders.
So you see fear and distrust as things that make society stronger or are you unaware of what impact even just one murder can have in a society let alone a string of them? Those that were in Seattle when Zapata was murdered can tell exactly what impact that had on the scene. About the part in bold: By your own admission you are doing that by completely ignoring any other benefit to society that person may have.


Quote from: rygD on December 17, 2009, 02:02:02 AMI think I might have missed your point, though.
You missed that homosexuality is not like serial killing?

I think you are taking this too seriously.  I make jokes.  Frequently they include the death of humans.  I dislike humans.  Too me, those people are merely workers.  If there are too many of them to actually keep them all employed, I want them to die and stop using the limited resources.  If many die, all the better.  Hell, If most humans die, and I happen to be around, I will celebrate.  To put things into perspective for you, I value human lives the same or less than the lives of non-human animals.  Don't forget that humans are animals, and don't start to think they are in any way "better".  Just more destructive.

Perhaps instead of allowing others to kill people we could just set up a lottery and harvest parts and use the rest for food, while telling everyone we are sending them to a wonderful island or something.  Then we solve several problems, and we don't have the pathetic fucks being scared.  But what then do we do with violent criminals who cannot be rehabilitated?

No, I never thought homosexuality was like homicide, but I do see benefits of both.  I sure would love to see all the heterosexuals killed though.
:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Triple Zero

homicide is also pretty scary for a homophonophobe.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

rygD

That is why we tell them things that sound happy.

Suggestions for alternate terms?

:rbtg:

Quote from: rygD on March 07, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
...nuke Iraq and give it to the Jews...

Nast

"If I owned Goodwill, no charity worker would feel safe.  I would sit in my office behind a massive pile of cocaine, racking my pistol's slide every time the cleaning lady came near.  Auditors, I'd just shoot."