Moderation, censorship and protectionism.

[ulli]

Posted by Sierra (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.

Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism, and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Cheers,

Raf.

Every government gets converted to a totalitarian state eventually. It kind of does not matter what government we have if the governors are spiritually and ethically grounded. How often does that happen no matter what form of government is in place?

When I see people advocating one form of government over another, because "it would work for the benefit of all", I think two things:
a) It has not been put into practice yet (and corrupted by human nature)
b) It is a Utopian pipe dream

The ONLY country today (that I am aware of) where the leadership is "for" the people is Bhutan. Their standard of measurement is "happiness", I kid you not.

The assessment of gross national happiness (GNH; Wylie: rgyal-yongs dga'a-skyid dpal-'dzoms) was designed in an attempt to define an indicator that measures quality of life or social progress in more holistic and psychological terms than only the economic indicator of gross domestic product.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness)

Oh, and Tibet as it used to be, they *are* the only government on the historical record, that stopped their imperial phase for spiritual reasons, walked away from their invasion of China.

The role of Buddhism was significant in the history of Tibet. From about the 7th century on, Buddhism was to play an ever increasing role in Tibetan culture and history. From that time until about 300 years ago, Tibet was one of the only cultures to have turned away from militance to become a totally peaceful society. Tibet was to carry a legacy of seeking power and empire building that was shared by many cultures but it was to transform itself into a society where nearly two-thirds of its expenditures went for education in the Buddhist faith. No longer did Tibet seek to control lands but remained hidden from the world is the isolation of the Himalayas.

No where in human history did a society embark on such a dramatic transformation as did Tibet. It took hundreds of years but Tibet went from one of the most feared societies who attacked China, India, and Persia to a peaceful kingdom dedicated to altruism. This unique transformation left Tibet struggling in isolation yet with a measure of peace found withing the heart of Buddhism.

From http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/t...t_history.html

The point I'm trying to make is that no system of government goes well, unless the collective population of any government style, hold themselves ethically and spiritually accountable, and teaches the next generation to do the same.

So it always falls back to do we have enough individuals in a population group that are clearing themselves, holding themselves accountable for what they put out into the world.

And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

Sierra

The yugas last too long. I say annual revolutions and term limits.

[Sierra]

Posted by ulli (here)

Posted by Sierra (here)
And perhaps sometimes, it does not matter what you do, the center cannot hold, just call it a phase of the Kali Yuga cycle for a lack of a better way to label the situation (that perhaps we find ourselves in today). Perhaps these cycles of golden age to boom and bust happen as a way to determine, are we spiritually responsible no matter what form of government under which we live and die? Perhaps incarnation cycles on earth, include a testing time as a graduation exercise ...

The yugas last too long. I say annual revolutions and term limits.

Burn baby, burn!

[christian]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
Based on what I clearly wrote, christian, you should be able to extrapolate on your own which posts I was referring to.

It's not that I can't extrapolate, my request was motivated by the idea that in order to have a mature and constructive conversation, things should be communicated openly, clearly, and humbly. If you've got something on your mind, and if you're sufficiently convinced that it's not just wild anger or any other low-scale emotion fueling your sentiment, then please let it out, don't just make allusions.

This is what the new paradigm is about, in my eyes. I don't want you to "name names," but I'd appreciate you communicating issues, not "he or she said something offensive," but "I find that this and that statement can be seen as offensive." There's no harm in that, quite to the contrary, I think.

I for one want to establish telepathic communication as the norm at some point. Then all your thoughts would be known to everybody anyways. I think to bring this paradigm into existence, if you want to, you can support it by keeping what you speak very much in alignment with what you think, focus your intention on conveying your message very openly and clearly on every level, written or spoken but also in mind communication, the latter of course being not that easy on an online forum.

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
The thread about Hagmann was closed because he was accused of homophobia, and now you want me to specifically state individuals who have exhibited similar positions. It isn't because you intend to moderate them. If the moderation in this regard was to be consistent, I would be the one expecting to be moderated.

I think Paul adressed this very well. The underlying spirit of this thread is very different.

Posted by Freed Fox (here)

Posted by Anchor (here)
This forum must not become a place of eggshells.

Chelley says hi.

This is another vague allusion.

Let's be realistic about this, Chelley was pretty much on one end of the spectrum, having almost no consideration for the fact that people in general must be in the appropriate state to receive, handle, and digest information. This inconsiderateness is not the level on which the forum operates.

It doesn't operate on the other end of the spectrum either, I hope, as in being overly protective, but there will of course be issues like the Hagman thread where opinions about that differ, fair enough, we're all just doing and saying what we think is appropriate. We're trying to work on ourselves, become more able and aware in every sense, but this takes prudence and forbearance.

[Wind]

Posted by Freed Fox (here)
Sexual orientation is not a choice. That should be blatantly obvious to anyone, even without scientific data to support it. To other heterosexual men here; did you ever, at any point, make a conscious decision to like women? Did you ever choose to not be attracted to other men? No. Of course you didn't. That was simply your predisposition.

The argument that same-sex relationships don't produce offspring is a tired one. Is 7 billion people simply not enough? Do we really need to be procreating like rabbits until overpopulation really does become an inescapable problem? Does every couple need to see childbearing as the bottom line, when there are already thousands of orphans with no one to care for them? Procreation is not the bottom line. Love is. Homosexuality isn't some kind of virus or contagious disease that, if allowed, is going to spread and doom the human race. Such absurd implications convey a severe misunderstanding of this issue, and is rather thinly veiled homophobia.

Of course, homophobia itself isn't of any major concern, unless it is acted upon (such as, for instance, claiming homosexuality is a 'problem' that needs to be somehow 'fixed').

I thought not about writing to this emotionally charged thread, but I agree with your message and I have to add my view to it. We all are souls in these meat suits and our souls are sexless... We all have had lives as women and men, but sometimes we might have more lives as men or women. Homosexuality actually is a choice that you make before you incarnate here. You might choose to be gay because you want more lessons in life or maybe you want to make other people understand diversity. I think that most if not all humans have some bisexual traits, others might just be more heterosexual and others might be more gay.

However, love is the most powerful thing in the universe and it goes beyond genders. There is conditional love that is associated with your loved ones and close friends and then there is unconditonal love that has no bounds.

Never stop loving, because that is the only thing that truely matters.

And everything happens for a reason...

[SilentFeathers]

My opinion:

A soul quark zapping and bouncing around the universe doesn't all of a sudden stop and choose to "incarnate into a meat suit human being on Earth to be gay".....That's ludicrous to my way of thinking.

Perhaps some people are born thinking that they should of been the opposite sex, but acting upon that is "a choice" IMO.

To each his own but what I am seeing is beyond the privacy of ones home/bedroom and being forced upon the public, being forced upon everyone to accept as normal behavior regardless of their beliefs and or moral values. Hypocritical Political Correctness is not the same as equality......

It is a sign of an unbalanced society, a confused species, and now a public conditioning/manipulation to further cause division and conflict for a sinister agenda.....what's next? conditioning our children that marriage between a man and a woman is now abnormal and or a thing of the past? That gays now have more of a right to sit at the front of the bus than those that are not gay?

Personally I feel that if someone wants to be gay that is there right.....but they and or the government has NO RIGHT to force ME to accept it as a public spectacle and for me to step aside to give them the "right of way".

Judge me as you may, but that is my opinion about this issue.....it has gotten out of hand and outta control to say the least.

PS: this post outta get the thread sparking again!

[christian]

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
Personally I feel that if someone wants to be gay that is there right.....but they and or the government has NO RIGHT to force ME to accept it as a public spectacle and for me to step aside to give them the "right of way".

I don't quite understand what you wanna achieve. What does "accept something as a public spectacle" mean? Do you want to forbid Christopher Street Day parades? If someone is a football fanatic and has a party about it, it's his or her thing. Let them celebrate, same goes for gay people. You don't have to participate. Do you mean that gays should only be allowed to be gay in secret?

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
being forced upon everyone to accept as normal behavior regardless of their beliefs and or moral values

Accepting something as normal means to accept it as the norm, i.e. being taught that this is how you should be. I don't think that this is happening, it's more about tolerating gays and not discriminating them, which is fair enough, in my opinion.

[SilentFeathers]

I'm not trying to acheive anything, I just posted my opinion and it is what it is.....judge it as you feel you need to.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Well as I said before, I am not an eloquent person as the previous thread showed. I am glad to see something positive come out of it however. This is a better thread.

[Mike]

Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy. I know this because i'm intellectually lazy...but in my defense you wouldn't catch me dead wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, ironically or otherwise, unless I knew the man's history like the back of my palm, ok? alright then, moving on to more stuff I know exactly jack-sh!t about...

homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=OxV9Z1gNyQA

this is pretty funny...worth watching...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JjQlh52Em3o

yesterday (or was it the day before?) I wrote a long, brilliant, meandering post for Raf's original Hagmann thread, only to find that the thing had been closed (damnit!). I still wanted to make a public statement of some sort, but not having the energy or motivation or integrity of a Raf, I decided against a thread and instead left a msg on Bill's wall, which represents the extremely condensed version of said brilliant albeit aborted post. he responded thoughtfully and courteously, and as I said to him, it really makes no sense to continue to rhetorically bludgeon any mods or members with my opinion, as we're likely to never agree, regardless of my brilliant arguments and rebuttals. I will not repeat everything I said there, here, (see: laziness) but I think it's sufficient to say that I strongly disagreed with the thread's being renamed and closed.

that's it for now. but stay tuned: I might have something utterly meaningless to say later.

p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

[Zampano]

I am just throwing this piece in here

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

[naste.de.lumina]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy. I know this because i'm intellectually lazy...but in my defense you wouldn't catch me dead wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt, ironically or otherwise, unless I knew the man's history like the back of my palm, ok? alright then, moving on to more stuff I know exactly jack-sh!t about...

Leveraging your text on 'ism' my friend.
Music posted yesterday in another thread PA. It has to do with the facets of the choices.
Called 'Ideology', with Inglês subtitles. And the artist was bi-sexual.
So we have two issues into one in this video.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EOoZae6RT4A

Cazuza - Ideology.

Ideology is the third solo album of the Brazilian rock singer Cazuza, released in 1988.É the hard conceptual and is Also Considered their best studio album and won the Sharp Award for best album in the year of its launch. Considered one is the best of his albums and it Cazuza talks about his relationship with AIDS and with the album cover death.2 Caused some controversy because mixed swastikas and stars of today Davi.3 Ideology sold over 2 million copies.

AIDS (Which he Suffered from disease since 1985) returns to manifest itself in October 1987. Cazuza is hospitalized at St. Vincent Clinic in Rio de Janeiro, for the case of a new pneumonia. Soon after, he was seeking treatment in the United States. Upon returning to Brazil in early December 1987, after two months of treatment at the New England Hospital Boston, Cazuza starts recording for a new album. Ideology, launched in 1988, includes the hits "Brazil," "It's My Party Show" and the title track "Ideology". Ideology was voted song of the year. "Brazil" (Sharp Award in 1988) was re-recorded by Gal Costa and was the opening theme of Vale Tudo Globe.
On July 7, 1990, Cazuza dies at age 32.

[christian]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.

Haha. He'd have said intolerable deviation, I guess.

All I'm saying is, I hope that not all of humanity resorts to gay sex only, for then humanity dies out. I think that's common sense.



As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene and arrest (or abort) people preemptively. This is eugenics.

So, who's Hitleresque?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Chinaski (here)
p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

Ah, I had overlooked this... I don't get it.

[Mitzvah]

Raf old man,

People's obsession with SAFETY. COMFORT.

People being small. Their fear.

The social program. Be nice don't do anything uncomfortable. Don't say anything that makes others upset or 'un-safe'.

Safety is valued over freedom. Freedom isn't safe, it's not secure, you have to fly without a net, and no one to erase things that cause discomfort.

This is why this world is not free. People want safe instead of free. A noble idea. We look cool discussing it. Safety is key...and keep freedom locked away.

Not free, there's no even a desire to be free. Content to talk about free.

True spiritual and personal growth is painful, uncomfortable and unsafe. Personal growth people don't demand censorship, what they have endured is far more harsh than some unnerving words. People disturbed by mere words.

The universe hears that and responds, and give people what they want. A nice orderly world controlled and monitored by others.

Here and abroad. Its not just the 'sheep' that want safety, its why the alt media is filled with spiritualists and whistleblowers to tell them what's going to happen. To make them feel safe.

But truly free people can't be censored. You might have to bit your lip in the safety league but something larger than them being small is listening. To the free person.

Posted by RMorgan (here)
Hey folks,

I´m writing this post with all due respect I have for Bill and the moderation team, but I can´t ignore and be complacent with wrong attitudes.

Our colleague, EYES WIDE OPEN, posted an article of clear prejudiced, ignorant and homophobic nature, so we could discuss and express our opinions about it.

The article itself was biased, which means that, beyond any doubt, it reflects the personal opinion of the author. Of course, the article itself was a critique, and critiques are inevitably personal.

Well, first of all, whenever a journalist writes a personal article, reflecting his personal view, he must assume responsibility over it and its consequences. It´s his opinion, as it reflects what he thinks as an individual, after all.

Going straight to the point. Our colleague posted the article for our appreciation and criticism. The absolutely ridiculous content, naturally, didn´t generate very positive feedback, though.

Then, the moderation, feeling offended because the author of the article is someone of their esteem, quickly changed the title to "..ad hominem attack.." and definitively locked the thread later on.

The problem is that, if fair criticism towards an article that reflects the personal points of view of the author can be considered an ad hominem attack, then you´re automatically forbidden to criticize 90% of articles and books out there.

This is an argumentative fallacy. It´s not an ad hominem attack when you criticize any article that happens to reflect the author´s opinion. Period. Simply because, in such cases, it´s impossible to criticize one without automatically criticizing the other.

An ad hominem attack is when you try to invalidate the content by ridiculing the author. This is not the case here, where the content of the article was actually ridiculous, and since it reflects the mindset of the author because the article is about his opinion, it inevitably leads us to conclude that the mind behind the opinion is utterly ignorant. There´s no way to disassociate one from another.

To conclude, I´d like to respectfully state that this was an act of censorship, protectionism and consequently an act of manipulation, when someone is deliberately filtering information in order to artificially shield the reputation of someone of their personal preferences.

If that article, and it´s criticism, was an ad hominem attack, it was the author who did it to himself. He´s an adult, a professional, and should think twice before speaking nonsense. His reputation is his responsibility.

Well, I know this thread itself probably wont last long, or will be moved to the oblivious corners of the forum, but I absolutely insist on stating my opinion.

Most of the times, the moderation team and Bill do a very good and reasonable work in managing this place, but not this time.

As a side note, it simply makes no sense to censor this article around here, since the author itself has published it in his own website. If you don´t want the whole world to see the asshole that he really is, then you should email him asking him to remove it.

If his horrible article affects his credibility, then it´s exclusively his fault. There´s nothing you can do to shield his insane opinions from the world´s judgment.

I love you guys, but you´re wrong.

With all due respect,

Raf.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)

As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene ...

I'm not 100% sold on the gay gene either. I would need to look into that a fair bit to be convinced. The reasoning behind my disbelief in a "gay" gene is that I think everyone has propensity to be far more accepting to variations in both sexuality and relationship "styles", but it has been "cultured" out of us. It may have been done on purpose by those who control major religions to create more division in humanity - and if that was the goal it certainly worked. I do not believe there are any more "gay" or "alternative sexual lifestyle" people in this day in age than any other age in time - the only thing that changes is cultural perception and nothing else.

Take a look at animals. Anyone who has ever owned or observed a lot of cats know that many are bisexual. It's something one has to accept if you want to have many cats - maybe why many only get one, lol. What about other animals? Same story here. Dolphins are extremely sexual animals and males even have a special hole so they can engage in "homosexual" activities. Blame God if it grosses one out - this is reality.

We can also make a distinction between relationships and sex. In the world of "gayness", somehow one of these means the other; cultural programming again, but in reality there is no natural connection between these two. To give you an example, I have a close friend of mine that I refer to as my "gay" friend, but he is not gay, but he does enjoy sex with both sexes, and I have had to thwart his advances on occasion, which I learned to do comfortably - some people really get freaked out by stuff like that He says he will never have a relationship with a man ever, the thought is very undesirable to him; In fact he has a kid and has only ever had relationships with women, ever. So clearly this distinction between sex and relationship, which rarely exists in anyone's mind, really needs to exist for us to fully understand the situation. I admit, that I am completely ignorant just for the fact that I am not gay or bi, so who the hell am I to judge how it feels, what it is like, how people "become" that way or anything. All I can do is observe reasonable thought processes that considers each of these points. So that is what I did.

My 2 cents

[Mike]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)
homosexuality: Chris, the gay gene was actually discovered. look, I would never fault you for forgoing assless chaps in a gay pride parade, but I do find your position worrisome. "a tolerable deviation?" "unhealthy?" mate, you sound like Hitler attempting political correctness.

Haha. He'd have said intolerable deviation, I guess.

All I'm saying is, I hope that not all of humanity resorts to gay sex only, for then humanity dies out. I think that's common sense.



As for the gay gene... I don't buy that at all.

Genes do influence us, but there's more to who were are. If I'd buy into the gay gene, then I might as well buy into the rapist gene and arrest (or abort) people preemptively. This is eugenics.

So, who's Hitleresque?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Chinaski (here)
p.s. I challenge everyone here to *not* marry until it's legal for Christian and his partner to do so as well.

Ah, I had overlooked this... I don't get it.

well look Fuhrer, I agree with you obviously on not wanting the entire world to go gay (i'd be sprinting furiously to the nearest underground bunker with one of those 15th century chastity belts on if that were the case)... but I don't even think gays want that. no one wants that, and that has about as much chance occurring as the entire population of earth growing a 3rd arm....so i'm not too clear on where you're going with that.

the fact that you'd equate gays with rapists, even if you're attempting a harmless example, speaks volumes to your (in my opinion) vastly misguided views here. it reminds me of those who lament gay marriage, fearing the acceptance of it will lead to other insidious trends, like the pairings of man and ape, or woman and horse, or transvestite and pig. what will we do then, they say incredulously? and the only thing preventing me from mourning their unfortunate lack of brain cells is this hilarious vision of man and animal pairings taking over the earth...(sir,will you take this pig as your bride?)..and I have to laugh!

you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul? do you think they're all just faking it to piss off the right wing? Chris, you're normally so damn intelligent...have you been infiltrated by nefarious other-dimensional entities? are you a former member of Stephen Greer's team? have you been experiencing any lack of sleep or appetite lately? ok, now please grab your testicles and cough...

p.s. oh, I was just having a little fun with the previous p.s....

[Sierra]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
Raf, i'm afraid i'm one of those ignorant fools who only vaguely knows what true Marxism is, let alone it's relative position vis a vis socialism, vis a vis communism, and vis a vis the rest of the 'isms' listed on this thread and elsewhere. I try not to deal is 'isms' of any sort really, as I find them to be limiting and nuance deficient (at least that's what I tell myself to justify my ignorance) once you identify with one, you forsake all others; it's like pledging allegiance to a religion or something. all have their merits and demerits, and I s'pose i'm a bit of this and a bit of that...look, all I know is that capitalism doesn't work, or at least it's not working now, and calling it the "lesser of the evils" as I often hear it referred to here it the states, is nothing but an annoying default position for the intellectually lazy.

Yeah, democracy or rather the republic that we have (direct democracy is when people participate directly in the government, representative democracy is when a government that consist of representatives elected by the citizens. And this is how we get royally screwed in a degenerate government that quits representing us.) has nothing to do with capitalism, which plain and simple is a pyramid scheme, hence the boom and bust cycle our economy goes through with great regularity.

[Sierra]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Take a look at animals. Anyone who has ever owned or observed a lot of cats know that many are bisexual. It's something one has to accept if you want to have many cats - maybe why many only get one, lol. What about other animals? Same story here. Dolphins are extremely sexual animals and males even have a special hole so they can engage in "homosexual" activities. Blame God if it grosses one out - this is reality.

We can also make a distinction between relationships and sex. In the world of "gayness", somehow one of these means the other; cultural programming again, but in reality there is no natural connection between these two. To give you an example, I have a close friend of mine that I refer to as my "gay" friend, but he is not gay, but he does enjoy sex with both sexes, and I have had to thwart his advances on occasion, which I learned to do comfortably - some people really get freaked out by stuff like that He says he will never have a relationship with a man ever, the thought is very undesirable to him; In fact he has a kid and has only ever had relationships with women, ever. So clearly this distinction between sex and relationship, which rarely exists in anyone's mind, really needs to exist for us to fully understand the situation. I admit, that I am completely ignorant just for the fact that I am not gay or bi, so who the hell am I to judge how it feels, what it is like, how people "become" that way or anything. All I can do is observe reasonable thought processes that considers each of these points. So that is what I did.

My 2 cents

Hetero geese mate for life. So do gay geese.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
... <trim> ...

you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul?

Perhaps those are just regular gay people that had the "excessiveflamboyancy" gene ...

== UPDATE ==

After some more thought, one also must consider that 99.9% of their genes are not expressed, and, under new research I have stumbled across that the expression of genes can be influenced by many factors including the mind. So that begs the questions of whether we all have the gene and the propensity to be gay or not and it is within the mind that determines whether that gene is expressed or not?

But I digress ... just a rambling thought. If the topic interested me enough I might be inclined to do the research to answer my questions, but it doesn't.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I believe Wade, of all of us, is onto something of substance. The scarcity paradigm is so pervasive in our thinking, rightly or wrongly so, that we cannot even envision a world of abundance. But our technologies are now close to that goal, again inways we cannot yet imagine because we have yet to let the old authority go. They are obsolete in a world of abundance.

And what is the underlying fundamental of abundance but abundant free energy. This will free mankind like nothing has ever done before. It has no precedent. The nature of government in the future is impossible to imagine due to our myopic history, altered and censored as it is, and our iron grip on the fear of the mere mention of scarcity.

There will come a time, when the new physics breaks through the wall of egos that brick it in at present, when every citizen, every person on earth will have virtually full autonomy, freedom and unlimited resources. How will we interact then, no one can say.

[christian]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
well look Fuhrer, I agree with you obviously on not wanting the entire world to go gay (i'd be sprinting furiously to the nearest underground bunker with one of those 15th century chastity belts on if that were the case)... but I don't even think gays want that. no one wants that, and that has about as much chance occurring as the entire population of earth growing a 3rd arm....so i'm not too clear on where you're going with that.

I appreciate your respect, mein treuer Kamerad.



I know that gays probably don't want that and also that it's virtually impossible. I was making this point cause you were objecting to me saying unhealthy. It's unhealthy for a race if everybody is gay. I mean that being gay cannot/shouldn't be the norm, hence it's a deviation. That's not discriminating, that's a plain fact, in my eyes.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
the fact that you'd equate gays with rapists, even if you're attempting a harmless example, speaks volumes to your (in my opinion) vastly misguided views here.

I was pulling out a very illustrative example, one where people would do horrible things to others because of the other person's genes. I wanted to show very clearly that your argument was based on eugenics quackery.

I neither believe in the gay gene nor in the rapist gene. My disbelief in both is the common demininator here. I also don't believe in the genius gene. See, I'm "equating" gays with geniuses.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
you really doubt the gay gene? you ever seen Richard Simmons? Little Richard? RuPaul? do you think they're all just faking it to piss off the right wing?

OK, someone is very gay. Hence it has to be in the genes? Isn't that quite a leap? There's a plethora of reasons, I suspect. Genes may play their part, but they are surely not the sole determining factor, I reckon.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
Chris, you're normally so damn intelligent...have you been infiltrated by nefarious other-dimensional entities? are you a former member of Stephen Greer's team? have you been experiencing any lack of sleep or appetite lately? ok, now please grab your testicles and cough...

Check... no hernia. Had a good night's sleep and I'm eating like a king.

Thanks for the flowers anyways mate, right back at ya.

Steven Greer wouldn't have been the first guy to hit on me, but I can keep guys like him at a distance... If I had been infiltrated by some nefarious interdimensional reptoids, I'd be all for being gay, I guess.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
p.s. oh, I was just having a little fun with the previous p.s....

lol