discussion comment
10 years ago
I think the socks one is KYSO...Knock Yer Socks Off....but I was thinking the same thing...KSO..Knock Socks Off....
discussion comment
10 years ago
"Remember the episode of Alf..."
Damn I loved that show. Alf was THE MAN !!! Hilarious.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Pole_Doc....
I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point...
But I've developed a different hypothesis to explain the responses you generally see in online discussions. Could be totally bogus, and certainly doesn't apply to everyone, but it's surprising how often it seems to fit.
I basically divide people into two categories. I call them the Hearts and the Minds. And I closely associate them with Female and Male tendencies. The Minds having "Male" tendencies, and the Hearts having "Female" tendencies.
Now I realize a lot of people will go totally apeshit for even suggesting something so incredibly insensitive and gender biased and whatever else negative stuff they can call it. Well, sorry...
In any case, I think people in general can be classified by whether they are driven mostly by their minds or their hearts. Some people clearly seem to be driven by their emotions, and their instincts. They trust their feelings and their intuition over all else, and they place more importance in those feelings and intuitions than in any rational, logical analysis. As a result, their positions on various issues is the result of their feelings and intuition. As a result, often their knowledge of the facts, as well as depth of analysis or understanding, is lacking. Because to them it's just not important.
Others seem to be driven by their minds, and rational analysis. They tend to analyze situations, and trust their logic over their emotions and intuitions. They tend to think about things a lot and study issues in depth. And they seem to be totally devoid of any emotion or sympathy, which absolutely annoys the shit out of those who are driven by emotion.
I'll never forget being on a jury once, and we were judging a guy who was so clearly guilty that nobody in their right mind would find otherwise. His criminal history, the facts of the case, even a videotape showing him commiting the crime. But there was one older women who wouldn't budge from her belief that he was innocent. Her reasoning? "Aww, but look at him, and those eyes. He just CAN'T have done something like that". To her, no amount of facts or analysis would ever be as good as her feelings and intuition.
Anyway, I think what you see in online debates over issues is the Hearts vs the Minds. The Hearts tend to go for the emotional response. The Minds go for the analytical response.
And since the Hearts get their beliefs from their intuition and feelings, they generally don't have a depth of knowledge about the facts associated with the issues. Because those aren't nearly as important as the emotional and intuitive aspect. You don't NEED a lot of rational analysis to know that "intolerance, insensitivity, and injustice" are wrong. Why? Because they hurt people's feelings. Which is what is really important. Emotions and feelings. So when pressed for any factual depth in an issue, they are often limited to just their emotional and intuitive perspective. And at some point they run out of anything objective to respond with, and they get emotional and frustrated and give up. If you can't understand what, to them, are the obvious emotional points, then there's nothing to argue. Because the facts don't really matter.
The Minds, on the other hand, love to analyze and evaluate. When they discuss issues they feel more comfortable discussing those issues in great detail and depth. And that pisses the Hearts off immensely. It annoys the shit out of them because why the hell are these morons going into this great, boring detail on such an obvious issue?? You don't judge people, or be insensitive, because it will hurt their feelings !! Period !! What's to discuss??
So as a result, in discussions you'll see the Hearts give a response to an issue like "I think it's this way", with absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Because it's not important. My intuition is important, all the rest of your ridiculous analysis is irrelevant. And when you press them, they get emotional and upset. Why? Because you're bugging them with this annoying analysis that is irrelevant, and they can't respond to. So after giving the debate a try, they soon get so angry and frustrated that they bail out. A completely emotional response.
Ever notice that there are virtually NO liberal-based political analysis and discussion shows? But FOX News is filled with conservative discussions and analysis. There's tons of conservative political shows. But virtually nothing from the liberals. Why? Well, it's the battle of the Hearts and the Minds. The liberals (Hearts) are not interested in all this annoying analysis, because it's irrelevant. There's no market for it. The conservatives (Minds) love it, and spend their lives nitpicking and discussing in nauseating detail.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it...
discussion comment
10 years ago
zipman sez: "In contrast, you declare homosexuality wrong and provide no evidence. How is that the same as you smoking example?"
Well, no, I don't think I ever declared homosexuality wrong in this discussion. Even if I did, the points I've been trying to make here focus solely on people's reactions (such as the gay community and its supporters), when others question or condemn a sexual practice that they, and others, feel may be harmful to society. I'm questioning the clear hypocrisy of those who want you to tolerate THEM, but they not only refuse to tolerate YOU, they mock you and deride you and condemn you and call you names. A perfect example of that is in this thread.
The next step, and an entirely different subject, is what evidence exists that makes some people BELIEVE that the practice of homosexuality might be harmful to society.
I only used the smoking example since it is clearly understandable. I never intended to say that there exists irrefutable scientific data to prove the harm of sexual practices like the data showing the harm of smoking. It was just an analogy.
Now if you want to discuss data showing homosexuality to be harmful or beneficial, then be my guest.
discussion comment
10 years ago
And Seinfeld? Top notch, one of the best.
BTW speaking of Brady Bunch, did anyone watch the first Brady Bunch movie? Hilarious. It made fun of the TV series. Excellent. And the chick that played Marcia was SMOKING hot !!!!
discussion comment
10 years ago
BTW, FWIW...
Gilligan's Island: unwatchable, except to see Ginger. That chick was hot.
Three's Company: unwatchable.
Married with Children: good stuff, very watchable. I probably saw every episode twice. At least.
Honeymooners: totally unwatchable, as was I Love Lucy. Just too stupid.
WKRP: I loved it !! Saw each episode 3 or 4 times. Though never thought Loni Anderson was very hot.
Love Boat: Unwatchable, unless somebody really hot like Barbi Benton was a guest.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"Or the one where Seinfeld pontificated on nothing, nothing at all."
Not that there's anything wrong with that...no, not at all.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Fine, zipman...if it's so important to prove you're right about consent then great. It's about consent.
But that's totally irrelevant to the points being made. If you don't see that, then there's not much more I can say. If you really think it's irrational to consider some things right and others wrong, then I'm just speechless.
We make laws against things because we think they might be ultimately harmful to individuals or society. Murder, pedophilia, stealing, rape...because they hurt people, based on our internal perception of "hurt". And if some people think that some sexual practices also ultimately "hurt" people or society, even if zipman disagrees, do we consider them irrational? Apparently you do. I don't.
Every "right or wrong" decision we make comes down to a basic, internal, gut feeling of what's good and bad, right or wrong. We're born with that knowledge. Pedophila is ultimately bad because, as you say, it ends up hurting people. Why is THAT bad? Who gives a fuck if it hurts someone else? Because to humans, thankfully, when somebody else gets hurt, our basic nature, our internal knowledge of right and wrong, tells us that's not good, and those things should be avoided. Why? Because presumably we care about each other's well being. So we make laws. It is irrelevant if it's consentual, or anything else. It's wrong because it leads to bad stuff, and we give a damn. The VAST majority of us will never be subjected to pedophilia. But thankfully we care enough about each other to give a damn and do something about it. And we judge harshly our fellow man when he does shit like that.
And, by the way, we also ALL are instilled with an internal knowledge that it's totally repulsive. And that's one indication that we're born with a knowledge of right and wrong at birth. It affects us physically. Just like if we see a dog being abused. Or someone being shot. It makes us sick, and it just reinforces our belief that we're doing the right thing when we make laws against it.
If someone tells us 50 years ago that smoking may cause cancer, and people think "are you fucking serious, everyone does it !!", do we call those scientists irrational? No, respectfully we say, hmmm, maybe he's got a point. You certainly don't tell them that they are just generating fear and hatred and prejudice against smokers. Well, maybe zipman does....
So unless you are absolutely confident and certain that the people who feel that homosexuality might be ultimately harmful to society are totally full of shit, and you have conclusive data to prove it, I suggest you step back a bit and stop slinging mud, and calling names just because you disagree. And not calling someone "jerk off son" is a good start. Because when you start slinging mud, then bail from an intelligent discussion, you lose all credibility, like so many people here have done.
discussion comment
10 years ago
The Southern California area is HEAVILY Hispanic, because a lot of people have come from nearby Mexico in past generations. I don't know the latest stats, but in the LA area Hispanics might now be a majority.
And, as we all know but won't admit, Hispanic women and black women tend to offer higher mileage than "white" women. So most of the high mileage clubs in the LA area are populated by Latinas or Blacks.
And there is also a universal rule of women that states "the hotter the chick, the lower the mileage".
Therefore, if you're looking for hot, stacked white women you will have a tougher time finding them, and probably pay thru the nose for the experience.
I don't frequent expensive clubs with stacked white women, so I'm not an expert. However, I thing that generally the Spearmint Rhinos (Industry, LA) have some very hot women, as well as maybe 4Play in LA.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"I also agree with him generally about what he's posted regarding insensitive statements."
No comments about HIS incredibly offensive and insensitive statements? Or does he get a pass because he's for "civil rights"?
Yeah, that's it....tolerate ME, but I don't have to tolerate you.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"This will be my last post on this thread."
Why is it that the defenders of the gay lifestyle all get fed up and leave? sclvr bails, now Lopaw bails...
It sure seems like people finally run out of ammunition and start heading for the door. Doesn't speak too highly of those who claim to be so staunchly in support of "tolerance, and not being judgmental, and asking questions and learning about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance."
They call you ignorant and intolerant, then head for the door. I fear that all of this grand talk of tolerance only applies to tolerating THEM.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"....concerning the apparent pedophilia/homosexual parallel. I'm not sure I follow you. You aren't comparing the two, are you?"
No. The only reason I mentioned pedophilia is that it is 1. A sexual practice and 2. It is a sexual practice that virtually everyone agrees is disgusting and abhorrent.
Since it is a clear, agreed upon sexual practice that everyone abhors, it serves as a good example on the thought process people might use. It highlights that for those people who classify homosexuality as a sexual practice that is ultimately bad for society, and worthy of our judgement, the thought processes for the two activities are similar.
I also believe that for many people, there is something of an internal response to the thought of both acts that is close to revulsion, which also generates the "this is just wrong" response.
Personally, the thought of fucking some guy up the butt is, for me, totally repulsive. Somewhat like the thought of some guy having sex with a little kid. Repulsive. So while they are totally different acts, they generate a similar "this is wrong" response.
Sorry if that's offensive to some, but I think many males will agree about what I'm saying is the typical response to gay sex.
discussion comment
10 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
"If I were an 18 year old girl with an adequate body I'd have been a stripper too."
I dunno....
If the tables were turned, and I was a good looking 18 year old guy with an adequate body, would I have been a stripper in a strip club for women?
Considering some customers would be 60+ year old, unattractive grandmas with sagging skin, who reached into my pants and grabbed my dick, and wanted to kiss me on the lips?
It must be tough in that regard. Of course if all your customers are hot 18 year olds, then I suppose....
discussion comment
10 years ago
"Is there some weird nerd book that you get your stereotypes, blanket
statements and bullshit stats from?"
Is there some weird nerd book that you get your beliefs from that are always in opposition to what I say? Any facts whatsoever? Or do you just like to give me a hard time because you don't like me?
Yeah, that's it.
discussion comment
10 years ago
But I'm certain the senior and self-righteous TUSCL forum members will immediately pounce on sclvr for being negative and insensitive and offensive, right?
Let's see.....I'll get my popcorn...
discussion comment
10 years ago
Oh, and I forget when you called me a "narrowminded judgemental piece of shit". And you're scolding others about hypocrisy?
discussion comment
10 years ago
sclvr, consider this: OMFG. How DARE they! The nerve of pedophiles seeking equality and a peaceful life free from persecution and punishment!!! All of those "well meaning" old fucks like jerkoffson trying to deny them their rights and persecute them...How DARE those nasty old pedophiles force their desire to live their lives in peace be allowed to do so!!!!
IF some people equate the practice of homosexuality with other sexual practices such as pedophilia, then I'm sure you can understand how your comments would sound ridiculous, as I've shown above.
Now, in response to your comments about insensitivity, such as: "People like jerkoffson and Pole Doc are completely clueless as to just how offensive they are. They either refuse to see it or they just don't care."
You called me "jerkoffson". You called me an "old fuck". You called my comments the "epitome of hypocritical bullshit". You called me "clueless".
So tell me, are YOU completely clueless as to just how offensive YOU are? Or do you refuse to see it, or do you just not care?
discussion comment
10 years ago
Be a man, take control of the situation. Put her on the defensive. Act shocked that she would even ask, and then start to dismiss her as a racist, and take your drink and walk away. See if she comes running after you to proved she's not a racist...
discussion comment
10 years ago
Hey I know !!
When the chick asked you what nationality you are, say "Does it matter???"
Then watch her trip all over herself trying to prove to you she's not a shallow bitch, which she obviously is.
Ask her "You're not one of those judgmental racists are you?"
discussion comment
10 years ago
I always find it funny how so often women will tell you how shallow men are, but women are so freaking "deep" and love men for who they really are.
Bullshit.
Women are, in general, the most shallow creatures on the planet in spite of what they want you to believe. The list of reasons a woman won't date you is a mile long.
I'm about 5'11', but I'm so glad I'm not short. Because 95% of women will NOT date short guys. No way. And between them it's obvious. Just watch women discussing short guys. They all agree, it's obvious, no short guys.
But will they ever admit it? Of course not. There was a "candid camera" type of show a few years ago where a group of women were given a choice between three men, and they were secretly filmed deciding who they'd choose. Hilarious.
Anyway, women want tall, dark, handsome guys, who are bad boys on the outside but good boys on the inside, young and rich and good providers, and on and on. An incredibly shallow list of requirements.
And nowadays, with the "internet/Facebook/instant-gratification/like-dislike with the press of a button" age, I think it's getting far more shallow. These girls clicked the dislike button and poof, you're done. Shallow, ridiculous, but such is life.
Personally, while I'm a very honest guy, I'm starting to think that long term marriage commitments aren't something I'd recommend for a guy. So if you want some pussy, do what it takes, and be as shallow as these women are. Sad to say, but you're probably better off just doing the "hit it and split".
discussion comment
10 years ago
"Children cannot give meaningful consent, so any activities that involve an adult and a kid are illegal and SHOULD be illegal."
Seriously? You're telling me the only reason having sex with a small child deserves our wrath and hatred is because it lacks consent??? You can't be serious.
So is having sex with a goat fine, or is that bad also because you're never sure if the goat gave consent? What about having sex in public on Main St. in front of a bunch of kids walking home from school? Should you judge that? There's consent, so it's okay right? Well if you think these examples are okay and shouldn't be judged, then the vast majority of the public in most nations on the planet would strongly disagree with you. And I'm sure you can come up with many more pertinent examples. They are sexual practices that are wrong because they are wrong. How do we know they're wrong? Well, we are born with an internal knowledge of right and wrong. We may disagree on the specifics of some of those issues, but in general I think most people are in agreement on most of those things.
In any case, the entire issue of consent is irrelevant. My point is IF well meaning, rational individuals feel that some sexual practices are just plain wrong, and that those practices should be judged harshly by society, because they are ultimately bad for society, then dismissing those people as judgmental, fearful, ignorant, and full of hatred and intolerance is also very wrong. You may not agree with them, but dismissing them in that manner is shameful.
And that is my basic issue with the gay community. Not necessarily because of their practices, but because they are the masters of forcing their opinions on others. They feel no shame in dismissing and deriding and mocking those well meaning individuals who honestly feel that some sexual practices are basically wrong and should be judged by society.
discussion comment
10 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
"I don't think most strippers primary motivation is the money."
Ahhhh, okay...now that you put it that way, I think I understand. Good point. I never thought of it that way.
discussion comment
10 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
"It's partly the money, but I think that is a minor motivation"
Interesting you came to that conclusion. Especially after virtually every single stripper said it as their main motivation.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"Ours is not to judge, but to ask questions and learn about others so that our fear & ignorance do not breed hate and intolerance."
And while that does sound nice, I'm sure you'll agree that in some cases, our job IS to judge. Sometimes we SHOULD judge others. And sometimes hate and intolerance IS called for.
If, for example, a pedophile rapes a young child, our judgement, hatred and intolerance is not only called for, it's mandatory. Even though HE might be certain in his own mind that his sexual world is totally justified and normal.
There is right, and there is wrong.
The real question is in what situations do sexual (and other) preferences demand judgement, hatred, and intolerance. Or some portion of those. Just because the pedophile tells us "you shouldn't judge me because your fear and ignorance is breeding intolerance and hatred", doesn't mean we should listen to him.
So objectively, for those well meaning people who place certain sexual practices in a similar category, I'm sure we can agree that, for them, at least we can understand their judgement, hatred and intolerance.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"This topic was intended for one of my favorites too come clubbing down in Atlanta with me"
And she said no fucking way. What's more to discuss? We turned a stupid thread into an interesting discussion. Just because it's too difficult for you to understand doesn't mean everyone is a "troll".