OT: Hearts vs Minds

P.S. I posted this because I was curious to see jerikson's reaction. The reality is that we're all driven by some combination of "hearts" and "minds" and we're all subject to confirmation bias. However, it is important in life to ask yourself what evidence truth claims are based upon.

For example, jerikson asked in the previous thread why people reacted so negatively to people questioning whether homosexuality is unhealthy. Simple...gay people have been deprived of rights by people asking that question. I can't think of a time when a straight guy was beat up or killed just because he was straight. Makes some people sensitive about it.

You asked my position on homosexuality...my position isn't that I support everybody's right to be treated equally. As long as a dude doesn't get all up in my face with his dick I don't care if he has a boyfriend that sucks said dick. If he wants to marry said boyfriend it doesn't affect me, so go for it.

And, just to be clear, I'm not completely crazy about straight folks getting all in my face either. Unless they're HAWT CHICKS. In that case get that pussy all up in my face and I'll give you a big tip. WEEE-YAWWW!!!!

Jerkoffson is a nitwit who just doesn't get it.

I'm part of group C-We think with our cocks(or clits-Ms. Paw).

Unfortunately Jerikson is under the belief that something is automatically reasonable and logical if he writes it or it's an opinion he agrees with. Anything else is an emotional, off the cuff attack.

Which is amusing considering how much of what he suggests and defends is really just very thinly veiled discrimination.

I was a part of that debacle in the beginning when it started out reasonable. But then jerkoffson decided to push the somewhat pleasant discussion and try and defend his bigoted agenda. His defense of his intolerance and homophobia is pretty funny. And of course he is exactly the sort who would scream bloody murder if someone were to turn that bigotry back around on him. What a tool.

And if you look at the responses by jester and sclvr, the points I was trying to make become clear. They are perfect examples.

Their only response is name calling ("jerkoffson", "nitwit", "discrimination", "bigoted", "intolerance", "homophobia", "bigotry"...), and one-line dismissals of everything I say.

They have nothing else. No rational discussion, no facts. Just a quick, knee-jerk emotional response. That's all they have. And they don't even see the insane hypocrisy they are spewing. Calling me all kinds of nasty names and characterizations, and at the same time espousing tolerance and all the other bullshit they don't even understand.

They are the epitome of the "Hearts" personalities I described previously. They act like they are promoting rationality, and tolerance, and all this other stuff, but at the same time they treat anyone who disagrees with them with disgust and dismissal.

And in doing so they lose all credibility.

zipman, I didn't read the article you referenced, never read National Review, so I can't comment on any of it. What I wrote in my "Hearts vs. Minds" was nothing more than my observations over a lifetime, condensed into a short summary. Could be total BS, who knows. But it seems to apply.

Well sclvr5005, to be fair to jerikson40, I'm not sure how much the dude is being bigoted per se vs simply not understanding how it would feel to be a minority despised by some that they would actually attack you just for being you. And suffering more subtle prejudice from many who aren't so extreme.

I can think of many posts where people treat fag or gay as a slur. Myself included. I suspect (and hope) most people don't mean it as an actual slur but rather an humorous insult when used in the context of poking another heterosexual. But reading this did make me reflect a bit. On the other hand, I hate to let said reflection get in the way of fun that is intended to be harmless.

BTW, it looks like I slipped in my wring above. Written before morning coffee.. To be absolutely clear, I support anybody's right -- gay, straight, bi, trams, whatever -- to live life as they choose.

The question about hearts vs minds is genuine, though. My own belief is that nobody completely operates in a "minds" capacity. The best you can do is TRY to catch yourself when you're operating in "hearts" mode and step back to analyze the situation.

Of course, when you enter "thinking leith your genitals" mode there is no hope. Then you come. And start planning for the next time lil' head takes over...

The one here who has never had any creds to begin with is you, jerkoffson. Play the martyr all you want to....you're not winning any points here.You so pride yourself on your oh-so-well thought out and articulated drivel of hate and ignorance. If nothing else its fun to see you continually prove my point over and over again.

You didn't post on that other thread to ask questions or try to learn about something that you obviously fear and don't understand - your true colors came out when you used that thread as a pundit for your homophobia. It was obvious with the type of remarks you were making. So don't try and call it anything else but that.

The only other issue I'd comment on is the one zipman raised regarding global warming. It's very interesting.

The entire issue is INCREDIBLY complex. Most people don't even understand how complex it is, much less what the right answer is.

Anyone remember the "nuclear disaster" scares in the 70's? Movies like "China Syndrome", where a nuclear reactor would melt thru the earth and come out on the other side in China?

People believe what they want to believe. If it makes them feel good, they believe it. Even if the facts to support it don't exist. If people hate growth in industrial production, they will find reasons against it. If they love growth in industrial production, they will find reasons to support it. That's how people are.

Do you honestly believe that every person and scientist with a view on global warming really understands it? Of course not. Do we really understand how our climate operates? When we can't even forecast the weather for the next two days? And by projecting data hundreds of years in the past when records didn't exist? To within a tenth of a degree? It is INCREDIBLY complex.

My only point is one of caution, and skepticism. But if some people want to believe that industrial production is destroying the planet, then global warming is the perfect way to scare people into believing it.

Are some of the 70's "tree huggers" kicking themselves now because, it turns out, nuclear power isn't really as scary as they thought, and in fact it was a very cheap and reliable and environmentally friendly way to get power, even much better than wind and solar? Not perfect, but better? And now there are no nuclear plants being built because it's virtually impossible with all the regulations we put in place against them. Just fucking stupid, but that's what scientists told us.

The "Hearts" jump to an issue without much rational thought. It's something that supports what they already believe, so it has to be good. And to the extent we ALL have some of that attitude, we do the same thing.

Again, my only point here is caution and skepticism.

^^^
Jerikson40 my man, did you see the point though? Lowpaw is, let's face it, a member of a minority group some folks hate. Youre posts appear to be saying that "we just know" her sexual orientation is wrong and deserves judgement. A position that is A) not a "minds" position; and B) insulting.

You later clarified saying you were just asking why people get upset when the question is asked, but that is the Glenn Beck tactic.

You know the dude that asks a question like "is it possible that <insert bête noire of the day> raped and killed a coed while at university?" and goes on to say "but I'm just asking a question" when people react.

If you really thing homosexuality is fine and that it is NOT something "we just know to be wrong", what was the point of the discussion?

By the way, for those who immediately assume I think global warming is a hoax, you're wrong. I'm one of the few people who admits I have no clue how it works. I've tried to study it, but it is so incredibly complex, with so many unknowns, that I gave up.

Now, if scientists tell us after many years of research that smoking causes cancer, then yeah, you can do studies with live and dead people, and come up with some pretty conclusive stuff. Global warming isn't that way. It is infinitely more complex, and involves stuff that happens over many hundreds of years, and stuff that we have to model on massive supercomputers. And even that we're clueless about whether our models are correct.

So if you're certain about any of this stuff, you're much smarter than me. I'm clueless, and I admit it.

Again, jerkoffson is very hypocritical he will claim that he is vastly more logical than most and far above name calling. Just go back and read his posts through to see how often he calls other people "morons" and "6 six year old" or passive-aggressively suggests there is something extremely wrong with them without calling them an actual name (e.g. his attack on shadowcat for the t-shirts he wears into strip clubs). Ok, so he is against name calling but calls others names very often? Does not compute.

I will grant that he is slightly more capable of logic than some of the especially weak minds here (e.g. jester214 and that, in fact, is about the only way you tell the two of them apart). But, at best, he is maybe top 20% of the population in terms of being persuaded by logic as opposed to just feeling.

jerkofsson does have a rather big ego as well (not RickyBoy size, goes without saying) which gets in the way of him always been on the logical side - especially when he has gone far down the path and admitting he was wrong would be quite a cost. In those cases he can get himself pretty tangled up arguing some ridiculous positions. In some cases he gets so tangled up that he just becomes dishonest and complete rewrites what he was claiming in the first place (e.g. the cum in the pants thing. At first he admitted to it just from grinding then later changed his story to he could only do it if it included a HJ and only adolescents could get off from just a grind).


My biggest problem with the guy is just how he whines about everything.
Children, puppies, sunshine, ice cream? Is there anything he can't find to whine about?

I also suspect he may be exaggerating when he claims to be married with children and have more than one girlfriend on the side. Guy just not strike me as a player.

Nevertheless about 15% of the time he will post some good stuff. Especially if he is making a point of being humorous rather than in a foul mood and just trying to pick a fight.

Finally wasn't it Ayn Rand and her Objectivist cult who claim they are keepers of politics derived from pure reason? Since they are basically Libertarian, however, can't really call them left or right (on the right on economic matters, on the left on personal matters).

"If you really thing homosexuality is fine and that it is NOT something "we just know to be wrong", what was the point of the discussion?"

Again, for the umpteenth time...

I never said I just know it to be wrong. I said that *IF SOME PEOPLE* have a natural reaction to the practice of homosexuality that is very similar to the natural reaction they have to the practice of pedophila, it seems REASONABLE that they might tend to equate those practices as somewhat objectionable.

If Joe Blow sees a guy raping a 6 year old boy, and his reaction is to puke, and then he sees another guy fucking some dude up the butt, and has the same reaction, is it not reasonable that Joe Blow might question whether both practices are objectionable? Was he ever taught to puke at those things? No, probably not. It's difficult to teach people to puke.

That's all I'm saying. And the gay community does not allow people to make that connection, because they call it being intolerant and all other nasty names.

^^^^Unbe-fucking-lievable.
So if a hoard of us decide that what jerkoffson does in his private life is repulsive and we decide as a group to take away his rights and beat his ass because we think he's "wrong", we'd be justified, right jerkoffson? Or will the jerkoffson community-of-one scream intolerance?

By the way, I think sclvr's responses are fascinating. Notice how he is INCAPABLE of providing a rational discussion. It's always about emotions and personalities. The issues are irrelevant. It's only good people vs. bad people. I am, and always will be a "bad person" because I disagree with him. The issues are totally irrelevant, it's the personalities.

It's kind of funny how consistent he is. "Martyr", "drivel of hate and ignorance", "homophobia", and on and on. That's all he has.

Jerikson u need to learn some manners and respect for other people. U r one complete asswhole

"Jerikson u need to learn some manners and respect for other people. U r one complete asswhole"

Wow. I think that's a record here. Hypocrisy in the same sentence. "Manners and "respect", followed by "asswhole". Bravo dude.

Funny, jerkoffson, because I find your responses smug and ill conceived. You try so desperately to come off as intellectual and emotionless, but in eash post you just succeed in cementing your misplaced arrogance and ignorance.

^^^
I agree that things are complex. However, I object to the simple division into "hearts" and "minds", that you appear to be maintaining.

Do I think most people with an opinion on climate change understand the issues? For non-scientists -- very few. Most people are basically scientific illiterates, unfortunately.

For scientists in relevant fields -- fairly well. Even the way you ask the question betrays substantial confusion on your part. You're extrapolating from an inability to predict a shot term chaotic phenomenon (weather) and asserting that similar difficulties MUST exist for predicting a long term average (climate). I was amused by the fact that a major conservative magazine couldn't even find experts that take the position most of their readers "know" to be true. I'm not sure if that represented misunderstanding or disingenuousness.

Also, you do also realize that it was never scientists that said nuclear power was intrinsically problematic, don't you? I think any reasonable scientist would take the position that the details of using nuclear power represent a PM engineering problem combined with a cost benefit analysis. Many countries use substantial amounts of nuclear power (France, Japan, etc). Although Japan clearly flubbed aspects of their safety calculus...

Point being that scientists are people that at least try to analyze data through a rational lens. They were never the people that went to "The China Syndrome" and concluded that nuclear power was intrinsically bad. That was the general public.

And you do realize that, even in the movie, melting through the planet to come out in China was only a metaphor, n'est-ce pas?

Enough for tonight. Perhaps more tomorrow.

If it seems entertaining...

Lol so my analogy of you being the subject of hate and bigotry was irrational? Lol oh I don't think so. I noticed that you chose to not reply to it. Typical.

zipman, yeah, this ain't the place to get off on a side issue on global warming, especially with me. Like I say, I'm clueless, and I admit it. My only point out of all that is to exercise caution and skepticism. Because if there was ever an issue before the scientific community that stretches their ability to come to a provable conclusion, this is it.

"Lol so my analogy of you being the subject of hate and bigotry was irrational? Lol oh I don't think so. I noticed that you chose to not reply to it. Typical."

No, because it was stupid.

Here's what you said:

"So if a hoard of us decide that what jerkoffson does in his private life is repulsive and we decide as a group to take away his rights and beat his ass because we think he's "wrong", we'd be justified, right jerkoffson?"

What society does is agree among itself what they think is right and wrong. Do you understand that? And if a majority is willing to agree or vote on an issue, it then it might even become law. That's how society works. Do you understand that?

So if a "hoard" of you decide what I do in my private life is wrong, are you justified in taking that right away and beating me? Of course not. But if a large enough group of society can agree that some practice is "wrong", are they justified in coming together and enacting legislation or whatever else to inhibit people's behavior? Of course. Happens every day. Just like when people decide as a group that pedophilia is wrong. So they enact laws against the practice.

Does it mean we're allowed to beat the crap out of a pedophile? Well, no, cuz there are laws against it.

You can't be really that stupid you don't get all of this, are you?

^^^^Don't forget the creation of the universe and the beginning of life.
Earth going through climate changes has been pretty well covered.

No I get it....way better than someone like you ever will.

Throwing around insults again, hypocrite? Oh that's so beneath you.

"Throwing around insults again, hypocrite?"

No dude, it's a proven fact, not an insult. If someone can't understand the most basic concepts, even after they are explained over and over in detail, it's pretty certain they are stupid. I'm sorry if that's insulting to you, but it's true dude. Stupid is defined as "lacking intelligence or common sense". Dude, by your responses you have zero common sense.

Dude, by YOUR responses you have zero credibility.
And that's an understatement.

Haha! Someone jerkoffson calls someone a name it is a "fact", but if others call him one it is not a fact, just wrong and, hence childish? Sorry jerkoffson but everyone thinks they are just stating a fact when the call you an idiot.

Honestly, sclvr, it's people like you that make me so glad I'm never in front of a jury. Geezus, the thought scares the crap out of me. The lack of ability to analyze the simplest and most basic issues is just downright scary.

^^^ complete idiot. Probably a homo too.

Jerikson, you should read Oscar Wilde quotes. That guy knew a lot about the human condition.

Agreed, Dougster.
We are obviously having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

"Your honor and members of the jury, I have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that that my client, the defendant, is innocent. I've produced conclusive video evidence, conclusive DNA evidence, 563 objective witnesses who have provided sworn statements as to the defendants innocence, sworn statements by the victim that my client didn't do it, and even the prosecutor has testified "no fucking way he did it".

"Jury, how do you find?"

"We find the defendant guilty. Because he's an asswhole. Hang 'em".

@zippmmann668-

It's lopaw, not lowpaw.
(see what I did there with YOUR name? Didja? Didja?)
Bahahahaha.
I'm extra silly today.

That is all.

Do you know what "splitting" is, jerkoffson? If not look it up sometime and then look at your post just above for a perfect real world example.

I do want to take this moment to thank sclvr for his participation so far. But unfortunately he has come to the end of the road with me. It takes a LOT for someone to get on my ignore list. You really have to have absolutely NOTHING useful to say. Ever.

I really don't care about name calling. But I do expect people to at least have something useful or interesting to say once in a while. Even just once a week. But like too many others here, with him it's all about knee jerk emotions.

So, thanks for playing sclvr. I wish you the best !!

jerkoffson: "It takes a LOT for someone to get on my ignore list."

Nah, they just have to be smarter than you and once realize you can't out debate them.

Good job, sclvr!

Thx Dougster!

Sorry you feel that way, jerkoffson. But not to worry - I've got no immediate plans to put YOU on ignore. I will check on your inane posts and bitch slap you as needed. I'm sure that you will peek in from time to time to check out what I posted. Til then!

"Unfortunately Jerikson is under the belief that something is automatically reasonable and logical if he writes it or it's an opinion he agrees with. Anything else is an emotional, off the cuff attack."

No, not at all. If anything I say is wrong, and somebody shows me it's wrong, I am more than happy to change my views. I recently admitted I'm clueless about global warming, for example. I also said my "Hearts vs. Minds" hypothesis could be total BS. I admitted that. But until someone gives me a rational reason why it is BS, I'll continue believing it has some merit.

But so far, nobody here has done that. And name calling and other attacks are not rational reasons.

Do you have ANYTHING that proves or disproves my hypothesis? Anything at all?

Has anyone ever shown you to be wrong about anything, jerkoffson? No! Because you are at least 1,000,000.35 x more rational than anyone here so never wrong in a a disagreement. Well in your own mind, at least. Reality is another story...

Jerikson, how do you prove or disprove an opinion or point of view?
Links? Footnotes? The logic of Plato?

The one thing that he has proven, at least to me, is that he is a complete sheep. Baaaaaaaaaaaaah! He says that well, if the general populace thinks that something is "wrong", then I guess it must be. Guess he never thinks outside of the box. Never questioning the status quo is a sad way to live. But I guess jerkoffson likes being a mindless drone.

"Jerikson, how do you prove or disprove an opinion or point of view?
Links? Footnotes? The logic of Plato?"

Honestly Mikey, you've got me stumped. I can't figure out what the hell you're saying or what point you're trying to make.

"Do you have ANYTHING that proves or disproves my hypothesis? Anything at all?"

Do you get my question now, Einstien?

"Nah, they just have to be smarter than you and once realize you can't out debate them."

Unlike Dugly who you just have to catch being wrong.

^^^ complete idiot. Probably a homo too.

"Do you get my question now, Einstien?"

No, Mikey, I really don't. It just seems so obvious. If you disagree with what I say, then give me a rational explanation why you disagree. If you have facts, or observations, or experience, or whatever, then lay it out clearly like I did. Why are you even asking that? Isn't that obvious?

Most people here respond to a long winded discussion with nothing more than "I disagree you asswhole". I'm saying, y'know, maybe give us some reasoning instead of some moronic response like that.

@jerikson40:

I've been reading through these posts, holding my peace till now. I think you (jerikson) have handled yourself well. You're not perfect (and never have claimed to be) but you seem to have come a long way, since we first began engaging. Your posts here seem to be void of emotion. You're merely stating your position on things, in spite of its unpopularity.

It is my observation that barring zipman68 (who again I commend), mostly everyone here just seems to like picking on you. Now, I will say they do have a point about some things (you have been guilty of name calling yourself, for example). However, for the most part, all I seem to be reading is just a lot of open season attacking going on, toward ANYTHING you say. They've even appeared to be baiting you into certain areas and you've skillfully been trying to ignore it. I commend you, Sir! You seem to have a grasp on things.

As for the attacks on your level of intelligence, I say get real. It may be justifiable to call you a lot of things but to question your intellectual prowess isn't fair. I may not agree with all that you post but it is clear to me you are a man of euriditon. I would never question that and make it an issue, merely because we disagree on something. To do so I think is juvenile. One of the first rules of warfare is learning to respect your opponent's strengths.

Zipman seems to be the only one (and now myself) who has anything positive to say about you (or at least gives you credit when due). In most cases, whenever I come across a one sided situation, I'm usually able to find fault somewhere, in the midst. My father used to tell me that blame is something usually shared. My grandmother liked saying, "There's always something good you can find to say about anyone, even Satan. After all, he ain't lazy!" No one here seems to have ANYTHING good to say about you, jerikson, and I find that troublesome and NOT TOTALLY YOUR FAULT.

That's all I have to say for now. I've been off of these boards the last few hours ... been fucking. Right now, it's early, on a Saturday morning, and I's got sum mo fuckin' ta do! - LOL -😎 Peace out!!!!!

Yeah, jerkoffson, the real problem is that you are the ultimate master of logic even better than Bertrand Russell and logic is all you ever use to come to your conclusions. Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck at if p then q, not q, therefore not p. You are just like 120 iq points ahead of your nearest rival here. (Saying what he wants to hear. Think he'll go away now?)

Here's a news flash for ya, pole doc- if everyone except you and zipman is "picking on" jerkoffson, don't you suppose there is a reason? He is an arrogant, judgemental sycophant. Baiting him and having him respond is low hanging fruit here. How long have you been on this site? Why not take a break from your usual 18 paragraph responses and do a search of some of jerkoffson's past holier-than-thou rhetoric on every topic that he whines about. He posts unpopular theories and judgements and then is floored and astonished when no one agrees with him. NO ONE. But instead of realizing it and shutting the fuck up, he chooses to further argue and makes himself the martyr. He's not liked on this board and there are damn good reasons for that.
I think that he enjoys the attention and deliberately focuses on hot button topics to insite emotion in others so that he can sit back and make himself appear to be the voice of reason. I can see right through it and people like him. There are ways to express your opinion without condescending to others like he does. And if you take a deeper look into his posting history you'll see that he is the protagonist on most occasions. He brings a lot of the abuse on himself. We start flinging shit because we are sick to death of him and his blowhard bullshit.

@sclvr5005:

I've figured, and have suspected, quite a bit into what you've stated (No need to go back and research his past postings. I can extrapolate). I've also considered my presence to these posts being in its nascence. I understand your motives. However, I still don't see any of that as justification for advocating someone being "muzzled," simply due to them having an opposing view, or because of the politically incorrect fashion in which they've chosen to express it.

In the last board (“Hey Lopaw”), where tempers began to flare, Lopaw came to your defense (I rather like her, despite the decision she made to tuck and run). She stated that you are a huge advocate for civil rights. I was surprised by this (considering all of your, “STFU” banter … Again, I’m still relatively new). I’m sure you’re aware that the main premise behind the ideology of civil rights is “Equal Protection, Under the Law.” This “protection,” although not strictly limited to it, is mostly based upon the rights we Americans are all afforded, by the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as The Bill of Rights.

Now, “Equal Protection” doesn’t mean protection from say - an unpopular view. It doesn’t mean protection against a perceived to be “insensitive” comment. It doesn’t mean protection from vehement disagreement, or even offensively, self-perceived insults. The premise behind civil rights is to ensure that ALL Americans are equally guaranteed protection of their ability to exercise that which is afforded them, by the US Constitution. Now, what I have witnessed is Jerikson (and others) attempt to exercise those rights, by voicing controversial opinions, and sometimes making abrasive comments, in doing so. Although this may make him unpopular and unlikable, I find it quite a bit of a stretch to equate it with “persecution,” as you’ve implied, while in the process of calling for him to, “Shut the fuck up!” This premise, Sir, is un-American and antithetical to the cause of civil rights. I figure you, being an advocate and all, should be able to see that. In fact, I dare say, you’ve shown yourself to be more anti-civil rights than Jerikson has!

Consider this. I am a proud Caribbean-American black male, living in the US. The Ku Klux Klan expresses views that are contrary to my beliefs and hazardous to my health. Now, although I loath the principles the Klan stands for, I would gladly, and proudly, stand shoulder to shoulder with them (AR-15 in tow) to defend their right to express those views and promulgate the principles behind them. I don’t have to like you and we don’t have to agree, for us respect one another’s rights. That is what I hear on these boards, a lot of the time – a lack of respect for each other’s rights. I think we’re all probably better than that. We should be able to have adult debates, without being so thinned skinned and accusatory. Anyway, that’s how I see things.

@Pole doc-

While what you posted is all well and good, a strip club forum is by its nature a not very civilized place most of the time. And of course everybody is entitled to their opinions on issues. But for the very reasons I posted I, along with many others here, will no longer tolerate jerkoffson and his condescending nature. As long as he maintains his arrogant attitude I will let him have it at will. I'm sorry if that goes against your gentle nature. I will give you credit for at least being able to address things in a reasonable way. But you can't referee thus forum. Like I said earlier - he brings all of this on himself.

@Pole Doc, we had another member here who was STRONGLY opionated. Plus, he threw in "you SHOULD do this" and you SHOULD NOT do that"! Jerikson is coming close to this.

The member was Alucard....run out by a mob with pitchforks and torches

@mikeya02:

"... We had another member here who was STRONGLY opionated. Plus, he threw in "you SHOULD do this" and you SHOULD NOT do that"! Jerikson is coming close to this..."

So what?

@sclvr5005:

"... and of course everybody is entitled to their opinions on issues..."

... Which, apparently, you don't think are worthy of respecting (unless they're yours). That's unfortunate. You're creating missed opportunities.

"So what"?....Thus spake the great debater

@mikeya02:

" 'So what?'....Thus spake the great debater."

So what, he and the other guy are/were strongly opinionated. Respect their right to theirs, state yours, and move on!

You weren't being serious just now, were you?

"... Which, apparently, you don't think are worthy of respecting (unless they're yours). That's unfortunate. You're creating missed opportunities"

Au contraire.
I'll give most anyone the benefit of the doubt. You, for instance. Not jerkoffson, tho. Am I singling him out? Yes. He has worn out his welcome. His track record dictates that. Am I missing opportunies? From him? Hell no. And the more you try to defend him (you are the only one doing so,btw) the more credibility you lose IMO.

I was going to ask you the same thing, Pole Doc. Please dont tell us how to respond.

"Which, apparently, you don't think are worthy of respecting (unless they're yours). That's unfortunate. You're creating missed opportunities."

Haven't you heard? Our opinions are baseless and emotional and thus worthless. I believe they've also been called nonsense among other things.

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt for now Pole_Doc but you should keep in mind that jerikson has been doing this shit for almost 4 years. This isn't a new attitude and everything he is bitching about others doing, he's already done, arguably more egregiously.

Look, I'm sure that jester and sclvr and mikey and others are really cool guys. And probably a blast to hang out with. Even though they absolutely despise me I dont dislike them at all. I dont even know them.

I think when it comes to discussing issues, thats not something they're really good at. Hell, I suck at some things, other people suck ayt other things. So what? Its unfortunate they get so upset when someone disagrees with them or makes them look bad. But people are people. I wish theyd put me on ignore if it upsets them so much, but thats up to them.

I don't despise you Jerikson. You made some fun comments on old TV shows.

@mikeya02:

"I was going to ask you the same thing, Pole Doc. Please dont tell us how to respond."

Dude, I haven’t "told" you "how to" anything.

That's what I get for attempting the short answer … "Why not take a break from your usual 18 paragraph responses and do a search of some of jerkoffson's past holier-than-thou rhetoric on every topic that he whines about (sclvt5005)?"

Mikey, I guess my last response could've been in the form of a question. However, I was rushed and trying to be terse, in response to your responsive comment, which was equally so.

This is the only thing I can think of that would make you go where you appear to be going. All other comments I've posted (in this thread) have been nothing short of me merely pointing out observations and responding to that which has been directed at me, in the process.

I do hope we're not about to get thinned skinned and blow this out of proportion, taking it to a place where it doesn't belong?

@sclvt5005:

I have been defending him (Jerikson). You are correct. However, you’re failing to see the bigger picture. My apparent defense of Jerikson isn’t about HIM, per se. No, Sir, not at all! Go back and reread my Klan metaphor.

I am a defender of FREEDOM! I will defend her anytime, anywhere, for anyone, and any reason. Because of her, we’re able to do things like go to strip clubs and even have an opportunity to voice our opinions about them, in forums such as this one.

Lopaw said you are an advocate for civil rights. Certainly, you can relate to this? Jerikson has done nothing short of exercising his civil rights. All I have done is defend his right to do so. If defending FREEDOM causes me to lose credibility, I will gladly repay that very small price, 3 times over, Mr. Civil Rights advocate!

Pole_Doc, in an effort to encourage you to stop banging your head against a wall that will never move...

You are trying to discuss ISSUES with someone (sclvr) who has no interest in discussing issues. He's concerned only with personalities and egos. Nothing wrong with that, it's just that you are two different people trying to attack things from two different worlds. It will never work.

You can repeat the issues, and about freedom, and what's rational, for the next 20 years, and nothing will change. Because he doesn't operate that way. Again, nothing wrong with that, people are just wired differently.

His world revolves around emotions and egos and personalities. In his view, it's not about issues, its about who's a good person and who's a bad person. Who upsets him, who agrees with him, who makes him look bad, who's nice, etc. That's where he's coming from. All of this other discussion of issues is boring, irrelevant, and ridiculous. It's just not important.

You will never convince him about issues, because he doesn't even deal in issues.

Did you ever try to discuss something with a woman, and no matter how you try you never get anywhere? Yeah, sometimes it happens. And she feels the same way. Why can't this guy understand?

It's because we're wired differently in many ways. We think differently. Not always, but sometimes.

In this case, I think it's best if you just walk away, scratch your head, and just accept that people are people and sometimes you'll never have a meeting of the minds. Because sometimes a Mind can never understand a Heart.

Amen. :)

"So what, he and the other guy are/were strongly opinionated. Respect their right to theirs, state yours, and move on!"

Whats that sound like, Pole? I don't have to respect any opinion, I'll answer back as I see fit, and I'll move on when I feel like it.

People have the right to post whatever they want here. But, of course, you have to be dramatic and bring up CIVIL rights, which has nothing to do with anything here.

jerkoffson: "It's because we're wired differently in many ways. We think differently. Not always, but sometimes. "

You mean like aspie versus NT ("neuro-typical")? Are you one of them militant aspies, jerkoffson?

@pole_doe

I absolutely agree with you, the "Klan" has their right to stand on the sidewalk and spout their beliefs. I also have the right to stand across from them and tell them they're ignorant morons who've been bred by other ignorant morons to spout nothing but anger and hatred. With people like that, there is no point of reasoned argument. I'm sure they also think their opinions are logical and factual.

Again though, you're ignoring the simple fact that this isn't new behavior. It's been going on for years.

@mikeya02:

"So what, he and the other guy are/were strongly opinionated. Respect their right to theirs, state yours, and move on!"

As I've already stated (we've just gone over this), Mikey, perhaps I should've posted my response in the form of a question. I apologize (See, an apology). I was only trying to take Sclvr's suggestion, to perhaps not be so long in my postings, and I was terse. Being in a rush did not make things any better.

"People have the right to post whatever they want here. But, of course, you have to be dramatic and bring up CIVIL rights, which has nothing to do with anything here."

Of course, you are correct. People do have that RIGHT ... Aren't civil rights wonderful!?

BTW, I didn't bring up civil rights. Lopaw did (“Hey Lopaw”), in defense of her friend (sclvr5005). I've only been using the issue (primarily with him), in an attempt to point out certain, apparently unrecognizable, inconsistencies.

@jester214:

Thank you for your comments.

You are correct. The behavior (differences of opinions) has been going on for years. Isn't it great, though, we live in a country where this can happen without violence?

FREEDOM is a wonderful thing!

"Again though, you're ignoring the simple fact that this isn't new behavior. It's been going on for years."

Pole_Doc, like I say, you're barking up the wrong tree. When people actually argue with you about respecting others' opinions, you're in a losing battle.

And what Jester said is absolutely right. What's important here is the simple fact that I have been arguing with people in this forum on various subjects for years. Which means I've been hurting people's feelings and upsetting them. Why? Because many people get very hurt when someone disagrees or challenges them, or worse, makes them look bad.

That's what's really important. Not the Klan, or civil rights, or anything else. And jester even boils it down for you, and points out that you're missing the really important fact. Hurting people's feelings is the ultimate crime. That's what's important. That's why no rational discussion will ever amount to anything.

If the "Klan" has the right to say what they want, then what about Al Queda? The "Klan" has spent way more time terrorizing Americans than any other terrorist group.

Oh, I see. You didn't say respect any opinion and move on, you were being terse because of something sclvr said, it was Lopaw that made you bring up civil rights, etc. A real teflon man. And trying to prove God knows what, you bring up your race, the KKK, AR-15's, rules of warfare...
Why do you do that and what's your agenda, being an Oscar Wilde wannabe?
Sorry, I'm using my FREEDOM and civil rights. Don't blame me for what you post.

See Pole Doc, its ALWAYS about personalities, not issues. Its about YOU. You're a teflon man , oscar wilde wannabe, blah blah blah...never the issues, always the person.

Just scratch your head and move on....

@pole_doc, I think it was quite clear that wasn't the kind of behavior I was referring too. I thought perhaps your attempt here was honorable, though misguided, now I can see that was incorrect. Simple enough to continue from this point with that understanding.

@mikeya02:

It's all good ... I respect your right to post whatever you want. You win.

@SlickSpic:

I respect the right of anyone to SAY anything they want, including Al Queda or the Klan. As I've stated before, on another board, they're opinions, not weapons. Being able to voice them is partly the beauty of what is AMERICA. I love this country!!!

@jester214:

I am totally confused... What behavior are we talking about? I thought you were referencing the whole "standing on the street corner, shouting at each other" thing you mentioned.

I was commenting that I think it's a good thing for us to be able to do that, without violence. What were you talking about? I think we have a misunderstanding here.

@jester214:

Is it possible you are confusing Jerikson's recent comments with mine? I don't get it. What has changed your view and caused your most recent criticism? I'm confused.

Jerikson, of course its about personalities. When you complained about this and that, and guys were morons for doing this and that (yes, you did) I thought you were a super bitch. But there's more to you than that, (liking old shows, playing blues guitar) that makes me think you're ok.

And that's why people here gravitate towards some opinions more than others.

^^^ Never mind jester214. It's just "in his nature" (euphemism for passive-aggressive personality disorder) to like to dislike people for the slightest reason, or often when there is none to dream up something. Gives him a hardon. Issues from his early life that this board acts as displacement for.

^^^Never mind Dugly, he's been a troll here for even longer than Jerikson has been around.

"But there's more to you than that, (liking old shows, playing blues guitar) that makes me think you're ok."

Exactly. Issues are irrelevant, it's personalities that are important to some people. If they "like" you, they will agree with you. If they don't, they won't.

With other people, such as me, issues and personalities are entirely different things. We can disagree on issues, but still like each other as people, even if we don't share common interests. And we can discuss issues and respect each other without always turning the discussion to personalities.

People are different. Very different. Personally, I find it kinda strange that some people suddenly think you're "ok" once they realize that you share common interests with them. That doesn't compute with me. But I realize that's important to some people.

Again, personalities, egos, and emotion. That's what's important.

^^^ Well how's that for rejecting the olive branch? Living up to your name, jerkoffson!

wow....

That's what I'm talking about. What an asshole.

Smart Republican: "History shows that concentration of power in the hands of an individual or a group inevitably has a very negative ultimate net result."

Stupid Republican: "We don't need government. Look at squirrels, they do just fine without it."

Smart Democrat: "Powerful government is a necessary evil. To handle externalities through targeted regulation. To prevent the pauperizing of less skilled workers, unacceptable in itself, and also unacceptable because it leads to a deflationary spiral."

Stupid Democrat: "If the government just said everything was free, nobody would have to work, you could just go to the store and take everything you wanted."

Of course most people fall somewhere between these extremes.

Smart Democrats and Republicans don't have contempt for each other. They realize both sides have a point, and it's ultimately a matter of intuition which you think is more correct. The hearts vs. minds aspect come in in that smart Republicans realize that their philosophy of government means accepting a lot of suffering as necessary. It must be accepted to avoid the greater suffering that excessive government power will bring.

Sorry for the double double "W" lopaw...

peace, zzzzipppmn666668

This thread clearly had a life yesterday. Kind of cool.

My general position is that we're all guided largely by emotion UNLESS we specifically make a point to apply logic to a problem. I'm guilty of letting emotion guide me all of the time. What I'm surprised by is the statement from jerikson40 that...

"Exactly. Issues are irrelevant, it's personalities that are important to some people. If they "like" you, they will agree with you. If they don't, they won't.

With other people, such as me, issues and personalities are entirely different things. We can disagree on issues, but still like each other as people, even if we don't share common interests. And we can discuss issues and respect each other without always turning the discussion to personalities."

It seems your still asserting that you feel your positions are driven by logic -- that you are of the "minds" camp. But you also wrote...

"...I never said I just know [homosexuality] to be wrong. I said that *IF SOME PEOPLE* have a natural reaction to the practice of homosexuality that is very similar to the natural reaction they have to the practice of pedophila, it seems REASONABLE that they might tend to equate those practices as somewhat objectionable.

If Joe Blow sees a guy raping a 6 year old boy, and his reaction is to puke, and then he sees another guy fucking some dude up the butt, and has the same reaction, is it not reasonable that Joe Blow might question whether both practices are objectionable? Was he ever taught to puke at those things? No, probably not. It's difficult to teach people to puke."

Can you see the "some dude pukes reaction" is totally an emotional reaction? Now jerikson, I recognize that your asserting that this is a hypothetical and not necessarily the position YOU take. Let me offer some advice to Joe Blow...


1. If Joe sees a guy raping a 6 year old, call the frickin' cops. Don't waste time puking. Say "This is emergency, I am witnessing child abuse at [insert address]. Please send police as quickly as possible. I am going to intervene now to save the child"

2. If Joe sees one dude giving the hot, hot buttsex to another dude and both are adults he should ask himself why he clicked on the gay porn link if he is actually straight. Maybe reflect on the possibility that he is a little bi-curious...


Joking aside, why does it matter if something two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home makes him want to puke. If I saw an ugly chick doing it with an ugly dude it would probably make me queasy. Should I declare that only people I find hot should have sex?

Zipman-

You can't rationalize with jerkoffson. Can't you see that he is a robotic emotionless sheep, willing to go along with the status quo....as long as that status quo is conservative politically?

Its funny....here he is trying to debate that maybe homosexuality is wrong because society in general has deemed it so thru archaic laws. Now that that tide has begun to turn sharply with things like DOMA being struck down and gay marriage being recognised steady and surely throughout the land...will he now renounce his stand that hey, maybe it isn't wrong after all? Or will he, as I suspect in his militant right wing fashion, blame that turn around on the mass liberal rheteric that will be the ultimate demise of civilization as we know it? Lol I can read him like the cheap drugstore novel that he is.

Hey Jerikson

I know Spock, and you sir, are no Spock

Lmao mikeya02!

@mike: exactly. Alutard, another militant aspie, also thought he was a Totally Logical Being but not even close.

At the risk of being misunderstood..... Why can't the cause for the puking be due to them NOT being in the privacy of their own home? I mean, there's nothing in Jerikson's scenario that tells us where the person is witnessing the sodomy, or the rape.

It could be concluded that perhaps the individual would've puked, regardless of who was fucking (the 2 adults). The fact that they were able to witness something intended to be private, might have been what set them off.

I for one am not a fan of PDA (I don't care what the genders are). I'm a BIG freak but I don't want to be on display.

"Can you see the "some dude pukes reaction" is totally an emotional reaction?"

Of course it is. But I think you're missing the point.

Think about this: For everything you think is "right" or "wrong", how do you KNOW it's right or wrong? How do you know that murder is wrong? And don't tell me because it hurts someone. How do you know that hurting someone is wrong?

The answer is that every one of us was born imprinted with a basic set of rules for living. We all know that hurting someone is wrong. And we can all imagine a world that didn't know about that rule.

And furthermore, we are imprinted with not only a knowledge of right and wrong, but to seal the deal we all have internal, physical reactions to some things that make us absolutely sure something is wrong.

If you see someone being murdered and dismembered, how do you react? You have an intense physical reaction of horror, shock, disgust, vomiting etc. If there was any doubt about that being wrong, your intense physical reaction gave you no doubt whatsoever.

And that's my point. For some things we have a natural physical reaction that tells us "this is wrong". We were born with that reaction, it's natural, we never learned it.

And we all look at each other and nod your heads, "Yeah, that's definitely bad", and make laws against murder. How do you explain why it's bad? Well, because it is. It's obvious. We just know.

Now, we all have many emotions. But the point I was trying to make is that when discussing issues, with points and counter points, it works best if you can put those emotions aside and focus on the issues.

And if the issue is whether it is reasonable for some people to find some sexual practices abhorrent IF they have an imprinted physical reaction of "it's wrong", then it seems like a fairly simple discussion, void of the need for emotion. If Joe Blow "knows" something is wrong in the same way that you "know" pedophilia is wrong, then why dismiss Joe Blow as sub-human?

I'm not saying Joe Blow is right, I'm just saying if his core principles, which he was given at birth (just like you and me), cause him to react to something as being wrong, why mock the guy? That's what tolerance is about. Trying to understand people like Joe Blow.

Now, if you later find out that Joe is actually some KKK asshole whose core principles are some twisted version of right and wrong that were developed from too many kegs of beer and intermarriage within his family, then obviously you can dismiss him as being an imbecile and not worthy of recognition.

But if large segments of the population have an internal knowledge that something is "wrong", at least respect their beliefs. And if they are in error for some reason, discuss with them and show they why they are in error.

^^what a turd.
I can honestly say that I am repulsed by jerkoffson and want to puke. Therefore we as a society should eradicate him. Problem solved!

jerkoffson really needs to read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Lol!

That's an innocent line of thought except we learn almost everything. People aren't born ingrained with homophobia it's learned behavior. Look back in history, plenty of times/places where homosexuality was no big deal.

Jester, honestly, do you really expect to have any credibility at all if you only throw out these one line statements of what you believe, with no supporting reasoning whatsoever? Come on, at least you can put together SOMETHING to support your beliefs...

What about the guys that kill and rape liitle kids? Thats not learned behavior. A gene they were born with? A weak or deformed brain that makes them think of these things? I always wondered.

I can't believe that I'm about to agree with the addled likes of zipper, Dougster and sclvr, but here goes...

Jerkoff40 (you missed that one in your list of derogatory names), as usual, your arguments are passive aggressive, bake in certain assumptions as fact AND ignore other pertinent factors. In other words, the usual tri-fecta for you.

In this case, your passive aggressive instincts and your attempt to bake in assumptions are amply present in your poorly constructed, and quite disingenuous, attempts to analogize murders and pedophiles with homosexuals. But ok, keep on telling us "no, not me, the but a lot of other guys may feel that way." ;) Ah-huh. Do you really think that anyone is buying that?

But when you then go on to essentially say that "if enough of those other guys (not me of course, no, never) think that homos are as bad as pedophiles, then they may pass laws to stop it", you ignore the fundamental reality that there are a myriad of constitutional (federal and state) and other legislative restraints specifically designed to prevent tyranny of the majority in matters like this, even assuming that a large enough majority ever had the same reaction to homosexuality that you (oh, I mean 'the other guy") do.

But as an added bonus, you also don't really comprehend the fact that many people do NOT have as visceral a reaction to gays as they do to murderers and pedophiles. Just you (oh, wait, I mean the other guy, lol) and an irrational subset of other people. But your very lack of comprehension is precisely why you believe that this "other guy's" reactions to gays may be as justified as his reaction to people who kill and molest children and that it is we who are being irrational for finding "his" reactions so wrong.

Boy, if you are part of the "minds" camp, you must come from the Weak Division.

Now I don't expect you to actually formulate a cogent and complete response to this. You've never been able to follow the bouncing ball in the past, but rather you make more dramatic and irrational leaps in logic to try to prop up poorly constructed original arguments. But it would be nice to see you try at least once. :)

happy 100

@rick-
While I don't appreciate the 'addled' reference, I do commend you on a well written counterpoint to our favorite bigot's rantings.

Mr. Dugan, congratulations for being the only one to forumlate an intelligent response to what I've said. Honestly, I very much respect you for that. Thank you.

Aside from the fact that some of your response was a personal attack, including name calling (jerkoff40) and your personal characterizations of me and my motives (even though you've never met me), you do have some fairly intelligent thought in there.

Now, you seem to think that it's relevant that there are legal reasons why there cannot be laws against homosexuality. How is that relevant? The core issue here is "if some people's core principles, which they were given at birth (just like you and me), cause them to react to something as being wrong, why mock them?"

That is the issue I've been addressing.

You also present your belief that "many people do NOT have as visceral a reaction to gays as they do to murderers and pedophiles."

Fine. I tend to agree that's probably true. But is that a majority? Is that a large segment of the population? And where is your proof? I suspect that is an issue that may never be resolved clearly. I tend to think that a large portion of the population feels that way, large enough to at least deserve some respect. History of many cultures in the past seems to promote the belief that there is some negative aspects to the practice of homosexuality. Is it because they're all stupid homophobes? I find that hard to believe.

It's really unfortunate that you too jump to the name calling and characterizations in your discussions. I assumed you were an older guy, and presumably more mature. Maybe in the future you can tap the brakes on that a bit, huh? Just a thought.

And just for the record, my feelings about the practice of homosexuality are somewhat ambivalent. I do have an internal reaction when I see men kissing. It makes my skin crawl, and I think "EEeewwww". I'm sorry, but I've always been like that. I never learned that physical response. If anything, I've learned somewhat to suppress it. And the thought, or the sight, of a guy boning another guy up the butt sickens me. Again, not learned by anyone or anything, it just does.

And being around guys for my entire life, I think it's safe to say that many males have a similar response. I also think some have suppressed that to some degree.

But otherwise, I'm fairly ambivalent, and what consenting adults do is pretty much fine with me. I also support the legalization of prostitution for the same reason.

However, if someone were to show to me that those feelings I have are due to some cosmic law that ultimately homosexuality is bad for society, then I'll say, yeah, I can see that.

Well, there's a reason God did not make Adam and Eve gay. It would have defeated His purpose!

Damn I love that video joker....

"Well, there's a reason God did not make Adam and Eve gay. It would have defeated His purpose!"

Yeah, and famerart's impending fear of the world population spiraling to zero would come a whole lot quicker.

Why isn't he weighing in on this???

And by the way, for those who want to think that there are no rational reasons why someone might consider homosexuality to be somewhat detrimental, here are some things to consider:

If everyone practiced only gay sex, the population of the earth would quickly spiral to zero in a generation. Obvious, but still a reasonable issue to consider. So merely for the perpetuation of the population, you want some limits on practices that might affect society's future like that. It sounds like FarmerArt has studied this far more than me, so I'll defer to him for more information.

Many people believe that children grow best with a male and female parent. Now that doesn't assure the child will do well, but to many it's a fairly obvious prerequisite. Now some will say that single parents or gay parents do fine, and the kids turn out okay, and to some extent that's true. But for society as a whole, is it the best thing in the long term? Are there some long term negative effects we aren't fully aware of yet? Reasonable people will disagree.

To me personally, I feel that the second is quite legitimate and deserves some consideration. It may take generations before the long term effects of single and gay parents is fully understood, but I think we should be cautious. Kids have a tough enough time, and if we start them with some negative psychological stuff to deal with on top of it, we might regret it later. But it really does concern me.

Jerkoffson: "Kids have a tough enough time, and if we start them with some negative psychological stuff to deal with on top of it, we might regret it later. "

Of course. What do you think the origin of RickyBoy and jestie214's issues were?

Jerkoffson with the same garbage over and over and over again.

I'm starting to think jerikson associates lots of words with credibility and reason.

"History of many cultures in the past seems to promote the belief that there is some negative aspects to the practice of homosexuality." What?

Again you fail to recognize that in the past there have been cultures where two males having sex was normal AND many others where it wasn't considered a big deal. The Greeks and Romans for example. Some evidence that China and Japan didn't have an issue with it till Western influence became prevalent (much historical debate on this, particularly in regards to China). Are you really suggesting that YOU somehow were born with an inherent distaste for homosexuality, but in these cultures they just all missed that?

Your distaste (that's a polite word) is learned, you weren't born with it. I bet two hot women making out doesn't make you ill. In this country, and a lot of others, people have been told by a segment of society that two men having sex is disgusting and wrong. The older you are the larger that segment probably is. Just as a repressed Christian might freak out at seeing a straight couple engaging in bondage. That's learned behavior. No different than a racist who has been taught that non-whites are inferior.

As regards to homosexuality being "detrimental" your points are flawed in more than one way. Your first point is just a ridiculous over dramatization. Not to mention that given our ability to produce babies in a laboratory, it really wouldn't mean the end of life.

The last question of your second point might very well be valid. In the long term could openly homosexual parents raising children have some negative effects? Maybe. I don't think it will, but I can't know for sure. But so what? We don't stop drunks from having kids, or drug users or poor people or racists or criminals, the list is endless. These absolutely have some short AND long term negative effects. We MIGHT take these peoples kids away in some instances, but we don't try to stop them from having them and having a shot at raising them. It shouldn't be any different for homosexuals.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time though, you're a homophobe trying to hide your discriminatory attitude under some thin veil of "reasoned debate".

Jester, is that you??? Wow, I'm absolutely amazed !!! Bravo !!! Very impressed. You wrote something intelligent, clear, and some of it even has me rethinking some things !!!

The whole thing about it being normal in other cultures, if true, makes me wonder why some people have a negative physical reaction...you must agree, it's difficult if not impossible to teach people to have severe physical reactions to things unless you go to a LOT of effort to apply extreme psychological influences. Personally, I don't recall ever having anyone even suggest to me, much less make a concerted effort, to make me react negatively to homosexuality like that. So I'm having a tough time with your premise about most behaviors being learned. I guarantee nobody told me to feel like vomiting at the thought of some guy boning a mule.

And also, if it was "prevalent" in a culture, does that mean it is ultimately good for society? There are many heroin users in our society. Does that imply it's a good thing?

While we'll probably never agree, and you'll always be convinced I'm nothing more than a repressed homophobe or whatever, I have gained a bit of respect for you.

And by the way, I am not supporting the point about gay sex leading to decline in population. That was originally raised by FarmerArt in another thread about immigration being a way to fix what seemed to be a grave concern he had about declining world population growth.

He really seemed to be concerned about it, so I'm only suggesting that a rise in gay sex, without some obvious medical measures to counter the resulting population declines, seems to be far more critical to his concerns. He was talking in terms of many hundreds or thousands of years, and this would be on the order of generations.

Wow Jester! Jerkoffson has gained "a bit of respect" for you! Don't you feel totally validated as a person now?

Oh, and Jester, I forgot...

You did have a very good point about distaste for lesbian sex. You're absolutely right, the same feelings do NOT exist, for me at least, with lesbian sex. It doesn't turn me on like it does with some guys, but it certainly doesn't disgust me physically. My reaction is pretty ambivalent, except of course if the girls are super hot.

So yes, the reason why males might have severe reactions to male gay sex, but not female gay sex, isn't real clear. Maybe males don't NEED an internal rule about gay female sex, only about sex with other males.

Anyway, it's an interesting point.

And by the way, if distaste for gay sex really is learned, then why wouldn't I have the SAME negative, learned distaste for female gay sex?? Why would someone, or society, teach me that only male gay sex is bad?

Hmmm....

GM, Everyone!

I head back to work this morning and probably won't be able to engage, as much. I will, however, be checking in from time to time.

I just want to say how good it felt reading these posts this morning. My brain was actually stimulated, as I read through healthy, rational, and engaging debate. I don't see a lot of agreement but I wouldn't expect to (besides that would bore me).

I appreciate the respect being shown for each other's right to an opinion. So that we're clear, I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY SHOULD, OR SHOULD NOT POST! I'm merely stating that the healthy debate displayed, of late, is appreciated. Have a great day. Peace out!

I like being in the same camp as sclvr rather than having a "modicum" "of respect" from jerkoffson having everything I say considered "worthless" and, hence, put on ignore by him.

^^^
"And by the way, if distaste for gay sex really is learned, then why wouldn't I have the SAME negative, learned distaste for female gay sex?? Why would someone, or society, teach me that only male gay sex is bad?

Hmmm...."

Jerikson40 dude, you're missing the point when it comes to how we learn from society and how society "decides" what lessons to teach. Things are really woven into the fabric of our social interactions. Male gender roles are strongly circumscribed so I'm not surprised that you (oops...some hypothetical dude named Joe Blow) might have a strong negative reaction to gay dudes (aka "a wiggins")

But there are a lot of people who find middle aged dudes that chase stripper gross. Should they be able to forbid you from strip clubbing? Even though you are hurting nobody (and...hopefully...tipping the strippers well and therefore HELPING them).

We already have way too many laws based on that sort of attitude. The war on drugs and the illegality of a lot of sex work cost money to enforce, cost money to house people in prisons, and ruin lives when we send non-violent "offenders" to prisons. There are genuine societal interests in limiting some things associated with vice crimes (e.g., druggin' and drivin' is uncool, spreading STDs is not good) but they can be dealt with better in a framework that keeps the vices legal.

And jerikson40 dude...I'm taking your comments about "I'm ambivalent about homosexuality but why shouldn't we take Joe Blow seriously when he complains that he is repulsed".

However, it is also disingenuous. It allows you to say "but I'm just asking a question" a la Glen Beck asking "is it possible that (insert bête noire of the day) beats his wife and urinates on his neighbor's apple pie?" and then say "well...I never SAID he beats his wife or pisses on pie".

Here is what I think is really going on. You grew up thinking homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is wrong. It gives you the wiggins. However, you also engage in behaviors others find questionable (i.e., paying strippers for...whatever perverted shit you pay 'em to do). Society is also changing toward a more live and let live attitude with respect to gay men. This makes you (and Joe Blow) ambivalent.

BTW, Joe Blow is an unfortunate name for a homophobe. Sounds like the dude that goes to the "Country Bear Jamboree", gets into box with dick sized holes, and sucks off the dudes that choose to insert their wang dang doodles. Maybe the puking is actually from drinking too much semen.

Not that there's anything wrong with sucking random dicks inserted through holes. Hell, as a straight dude I wish more chicks were into it.

And RickDuganDude...addled? Where is the love? I thought we were buds.

OK...I understand. I have defended Juice and the dreaded Dougsta. If it makes things any better I mostly take a step batch and watch while those forces o' nature do whatever they're going to do. And laugh. Oh, how I laugh.

But I sympathize. No joke. Must kind of suck that Dougsta has SUCH a hard on for you. I will say that you handle it with grace. Peace.

*************************************************************************
Jerkoff40 posted:

You also present your belief that "many people do NOT have as visceral a reaction to gays as they do to murderers and pedophiles."

Fine. I tend to agree that's probably true. But is that a majority? Is that a large segment of the population? And where is your proof? I suspect that is an issue that may never be resolved clearly. I tend to think that a large portion of the population feels that way, large enough to at least deserve some respect. History of many cultures in the past seems to promote the belief that there is some negative aspects to the practice of homosexuality. Is it because they're all stupid homophobes? I find that hard to believe.
*************************************************************************

First of all, I'm not buying "the other guys" passive aggressive defense here. This "I'm the voice of reason, but I need to respect the masses anyway" nonsense is getting a little tiring. Take some ownership of your opinions already.

You are the only person here who believes that some large majority of the population dislikes male gays as much as they do pedophiles and murderers. We are all sharing our collective experiences, but yet you cling to that weird belief and then use it to continue to support your passive aggressive arguments.

Idk, but I liken watching gay men on TV to watching someone eat dog shit. I find it more than a little stomach turning and really need to avert my eyes when it happens. But that feeling of nausea is not the same as the rage I feel at the thought of someone abusing a child, or the loathing and outrage I have for someone who senselessly murders an innocent human being.

I share the views of others here who believe that the conversion from nausea to outrage hatred relating to male gays is learned. So no, I will not for a second consider some guy's hatred for gay men to be as equally valid as his hatred for pedophiles and any attempt to make that argument is ludicrous.

With that, I am done with this thread. I have neither the bandwidth nor the interest in reading any more of this tortured logic.

@rickdugan:

Dude, your dog shit analogy is spot on!

@everyone else:

Curious, is it not possible to have hatred for a particular behavior, without loathing the person displaying it?

Also, by not liking a particular behavior, does that make one fearful (phobia) of the person displaying it?

^^^^You have to define particular behavior to have a sensible answer.

To infer that there is any fear (phobia) when dealing with bigotry is laughable, at least with myself and I assume everyone here. I don't fear or have a phobia about homophobes or bigots or anyone else spewing hate based solely on sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. What I have is little patience for that type of thing.

And as far as "hating the sin but not the sinner".... I never bought that when uttered by religious groups when directed at gay people. And I can't help but detest someone who willfully practices bigotry towards others based on something that they cannot change, like race or sexual orientation. Its cowardly and worthy if contempt.

@mikeya02:

"You have to define particular behavior to have a sensible answer."

Why? Pick a behavior, any behavior. Fill in the blank.... Is it possible to hate ________ and not hate the person who does it. Possible choices: homosexuality (since that's where we're all going anyway), murdering, raping, stealing, back-biting, practical joking, lying, cheating, whoring, polluting, speeding, drunk driving, drunkenness, etc).

^^^ you said particular behavior. Now its any behavior.
Are you really trying to say that despising a behavior involves fear and loathing of the person? Either be more specific, or give us a break.

What do you think about your own question(s)?

^^^ And please try to be more precise with your words.

murder is not an activity, its a horrible crime.

Change activity to behavior

"Why would someone, or society, teach me that only male gay sex is bad?"

Really? Because society puts a lot more negative emphasis on homosexual men than women, since homosexual men are considered less than masculine an important trait for men in our society. How many super masculine males who would flip at the idea of two guys making out would drop everything to go watch two moderately attractive females kiss?

"Also, by not liking a particular behavior, does that make one fearful (phobia) of the person displaying it?"

Not necessarily. But in this case it's pretty obvious Jerikson's issue with homosexuality is not just the idea of them having sex that bothers him. Note his comments on parenting and it being detrimental to society in general.

@mikeya02:

You're correct. Does violence (instead of murder) classify as a behavior?

How about this?

Is it possible to hate an activity, or any subsequent behavior derived therefrom, without hating the individual(s) engaging it (activity or behavior; it doesn't matter)?

There's no need for philosophy here. I think we all see where I'm going; that doesn't change the fact that I asked simple "yes" or "no" questions, so please, "Give me a break!"

BTW, Sclvr, my question regarding fear had nothing to do with inferring that YOU fear anyone. The fear mentioned is directed toward those you like to call "homophobes."

I dislike violence. Does that automatically make me fearful of those committing it?

@jester214: Thanks for "getting" my question(s). I didn't think it/they was/were that difficult to understand (you too Sclvr).

I meant ... "the individual engaging IN it?"

^^^
Pole_Doc

I dont think a strong distaste for a particular behavior necessarily constitutes a fear of it. However, I've always felt that a reasonable proportion of men (probably >50%) who express strong distaste for male homosexuality actually do fear expressing their own homosexual urges. So homophobia is apt, in my opinion.

It is hard to assess the degree to which this is true, but I tend think that most people fall somewhere on a continuum of opposite sex/same sex attraction. Some have backgrounds that make it difficult to express the same-sex desires, so you end up with your Ted Haggard who preach anti-gay BS but then spend time with meth-dealing rent boys. Maybe if his social background permitted him to express his gay desires he wouldn't have needed the drugs. Probably would have been healthier for the dude.

Still others totally deny that part of their life. I mean really...how can you feel so strongly about gay dudes that you physically attack them? I think that amost has to come from some deep-seated issue that goes way beyond "I find it gross to think about two dudes goin' at it."

Well, since you refuse to define what activity, what behavior, and you lump joke telling, back biting, polluting, murderers,and rapists as a behavior, no, I don't know where you're coming from.

The answer to your generic question is yes. Anything is possible.

Sclvr:

"Thank You" is what I was saying (for getting my question):

"And as far as "hating the sin but not the sinner".... I never bought that when uttered by religious groups when directed at gay people."

BTW, you never answered the question (Yes or No).

"But that feeling of nausea is not the same as the rage I feel at the thought of someone abusing a child, or the loathing and outrage I have for someone who senselessly murders an innocent human being"

Rick, are you aware of the term "analogy"? It's when you use an example to make the understand of a point clearer. Sometimes the example is easier to understand than the direct issue being discussed.

I used an analogy of murder and pedophilia because it is very clear and unambiguous in peoples' minds. Homosexuality may not be. However, my point is that for many people, their reactions are SIMILAR. NOT IDENTICAL. SIMILAR. Perhaps to a significantly lesser degree, but similar enough that people might tend to classify the behaviors in the same, or reasonably similar category.

Geezus, you guys are draining every ounce of energy I have.

Look, I explained every single aspect of my thought process on this, including every single feeling and perspective I have regarding homosexuality. Nobody else has done that, you merely take pot shots.

Rick, you admit your response to gay sex is repulsion. Fine. So maybe you can drop your dislike for me, and man up, and say "hey, maybe he has a point. I dislike him for all the times he's criticized me for how I have my nose up strippers' butts, but maybe I can separate that from the discussion and man up and discuss the issues, instead of calling him names and saying he's fucking passive aggressive or whatever bullshit I can come up with"

Is that possible? Well, probably not, cuz, well, that's how some people are. Geezus.

And Rick sez: "With that, I am done with this thread. I have neither the bandwidth nor the interest in reading any more of this tortured logic."

Right. That's how you guys handle it. You run out of ammunition, have nothing else to say, and claim you've lost the "bandwidth and the interest" and walk away.

Grown adults, acting like fucking children, and proud of it. Sorry, but there's a point at which my objectivity gets replaced by frustration and disgust, and I've reached it. You guys should be fucking ashamed.

^^^
Jerikson40, this thread really started with a focus on your hearts/minds dichotomy. My contention is that few of us (myself included) operate on the minds side of the continuum. It really takes pausing and thinking carefully to be on the "minds" side. Even then you have to be careful about confirmation bias -- emphasizing the facts that validate the opinions that ultimately come from a visceral reaction (called "hearts" in your dichotomy, but "gut" is equally apt).

I don't think you've ever clarified whether you feel that "Joe Blow's" reaction is a "hearts" reaction. In my opinion it is. What is yours?

Regarding the question "does Joe Blow's opinion deserve consideration?" that depends on what you mean. Joe Blow (see..I'm keeping this TOTALLY hypothetical) should be given the same rights anybody else has to spout whatever he thinks.

If you mean "should we consider Joe Blow's opinion when considering laws that restrict the freedom of gay people, male or female, to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes with other willing adults?" the answer is "no". Actually, it is "FUCK NO". Doesn't matter if 95% of the country agrees with Joe Blow.

Ultimately, Joe Blow is making a "hearts" decision that -- if implemented -- restricts the freedom of people to do things that have zero impact on Joe Blow's life.

Joe Blow should go blow himself.

^^^
And, to be fair to RickDude, why *should* he continue to read after losing interest?

This is a debate for fun. It will have zero real impact on the world. I take Rick at his word that he's lost interest.

I'll stop when I lose interest.

"Okay, well, it's been great discussing this with you guys, but at this point I can't even figure out what the fuck most of you are saying. Maybe it makes some sort of sense to you guys, but as far as I can tell it's just some strange rambling nonsense.

So, discuss among yourselves"

Remember that Jerikson?

Really gonna bitch when someone else does it?

jerkoffson: "Sorry, but there's a point at which my objectivity gets replaced by frustration and disgust, and I've reached it. You guys should be fucking ashamed. "

Cry, jerkoffson, cry!