Racism on Musician Forums?

[Mr. Ron]

read the second sentence
Touche.

[Hababi]

Drug use? Liberalism doesn't encourage drug use.


Check Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc. liberal nations with liberal policies on drug use. Check the far left movements in America; decriminilization is usually on their platform.


see the first sentence is contradicted by the second sentence

different definitions of tolerance i guess

maybe the word i'm looking for is acceptance and understanding

which is tolerance (?)


See, but tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. You no doubt find some things morally objectionable but don't go around punching those who engage in the activity, or shouting at them to stop. Well, that's tolerance. If you accepted their activity as ok, that'd be acceptance.

[griftadan]

no it's not drug laws or other morality issues, it's economic stagnation caused by interventionism. i thought that was pretty obvious.

[Reaganista]

See, but tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. You no doubt find some things morally objectionable but don't go around punching those who engage in the activity, or shouting at them to stop. Well, that's tolerance. If you accepted their activity as ok, that'd be acceptance.

no sorry somebody who totally hates jews but manages to refrain from punching them is not tolerant of jews

[Amit]

yeah then the word i'm looking for is acceptance

[Hababi]

no sorry somebody who totally hates jews but manages to refrain from punching them is not tolerant of jews


Yeah they are. They're racist scumbags and not accepting, but they're tolerant to that degree.

[TheDMV]

Check Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc. liberal nations with liberal policies on drug use. Check the far left movements in America; decriminilization is usually on their platform.

Just because drug use is allowed in a few counties doesn't mean it's leading to the demise of whites in all of Europe. And there's no way that you can tell me that deviant behavior is encouraged. Liberalism =/= Anarchism.

[Reaganista]

sorry man you dont get to change the meaning of tolerate

[Illmatic]

sorry man you dont get to change the meaning of tolerate

he's Trilemma. he can do whatever he wants.

[Hababi]

Just because drug use is allowed in a few counties doesn't mean it's leading to the demise of whites in all of Europe.


It certainly contributes :p


And there's no way that you can tell me that deviant behavior is encouraged. Liberalism =/= Anarchism.


It's moral anarchism.

[Otherside]

Illmatic is black, he can do anything he wants and get away with it.

[Illmatic]

Illmatic is black, he can do anything he wants and get away with it.

Only if I have some dough (OJ, Kobe, R. Kelly)

[Amit]

Only if I have some dough (OJ, Kobe, R. Kelly)

(Dennis Rodman, Al Rocher, Martha Stewart)

[Illmatic]

(Dennis Rodman, Al Rocher, Martha Stewart)

Al Roker?

nigga please

He is as black as Ronald Reagan

[Hababi]

Oh, and: "Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

[griftadan]

It's moral anarchism.

oh common, you're better than this

[Otherside]

eww wikipedia eww

[Illmatic]

Why would he go to wikipedia instead of dictionary.com?

[Mr. Ron]

heyyyyyy wikipedia helped me greatly with many reports.

[sr800bkBassist]

moral anarchism is actually existentialism, not social liberalism.

[Hababi]

tol·er·ance Audio pronunciation of "tolerance" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerance&db=*

I'm right either way :p

[Hababi]

moral anarchism is actually existentialism, not social liberalism.


Social liberalism is existential in nature.

[sr800bkBassist]

tol·er·ance Audio pronunciation of "tolerance" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tolerance&db=*

I'm right either way :p
actually "respecting" is part of that deffinition.

[Reaganista]

Oh, and: "Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve."


i think you mean

To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.

[griftadan]

Social liberalism is existential in nature.

no it's not because you still can't do things like kill people or assualt them, nor can you take someone elses property.

[Reaganista]

tol·er·ance Audio pronunciation of "tolerance" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

no you cant respect people you hate

[TheDMV]

Social liberalism is existential in nature.

I just don't think that you can relate liberalism in any form to anarchism in any form.

[sr800bkBassist]

no it's not because you still can't do things like kill people or assualt them, nor can you take someone elses property.
which are you referring to?

because i actually believe that applies to both.
in existentialism, the contradiction arose where although it claims that humans are ultimately free, how would that justify interference to another's life, be it physical harm or any kind of hinderance. this, however, is where Locke's idea of a social contract steps in, in which even though there is no deffinite punishment according to this belief, everyone agrees that to best enjoy total freedom they must abstain from negatively interfering with eachother.

and i am not yet completely educated on social liberalism, but i believe this social contract would apply as well.

[Hababi]

actually "respecting" is part of that deffinition.


Acceptance is not.


no you cant respect people you hate


Well now you'll have to take that up with dictionary.com :p

[Reaganista]

is where Locke's idea of a social contract steps in, in which even though there is no deffinite punishment according to this belief, everyone agrees that to best enjoy total freedom they must abstain from negatively interfering with eachother.


no social contract is about man ceding some of his liberty to a government in order for it to enforce the rule of law

[Reaganista]

Well now you'll have to take that up with dictionary.com

umm

dictionary.com's definitions are respect and hate make it clear that you cant feel both

[griftadan]

which are you referring to?

because i actually believe that applies to both.
in existentialism, the contradiction arose where although it claims that humans are ultimately free, how would that justify interference to another's life, be it physical harm or any kind of hinderance. this, however, is where Locke's idea of a social contract steps in, in which even though there is no deffinite punishment according to this belief, everyone agrees that to best enjoy total freedom they must abstain from negatively interfering with eachother.

and i am not yet completely educated on social liberalism, but i believe this social contract would apply as well.

i was talking about trilemmas claim that social liberalism was somehow related to anarchism, and all the philosophies that follow suit. it's simply not true, as there is order to the system.

social liberailsm and social contract are usually compatible, but you have to remember that whatever the social contract is is completely dependant on the will of the people, and let's be honest sometimes (alot of the time) people are stupid. democracies can emplace a very opressive system of government.

[sr800bkBassist]

no social contract is about man ceding some of his liberty to a government in order for it to enforce the rule of law
no, Locke wrote about the social contract to nullify the need for a law/government.

[Reaganista]

no, Locke wrote about the social contract to nullify the need for a law/government
you really have no ****ing clue what you're talking about

[griftadan]

no, Locke wrote about the social contract to nullify the need for a law/government.

no the social contract was the way in which law/government was established in the first place.

read two treatises of government.

[sr800bkBassist]

meh i misenterpret things.

that's at least my own idea of it then.

[Reaganista]

well the whole point of his writing the treatises was to justify the gloriius revolution

[griftadan]

well if you want to actually have intelligent conversation with people i would suggest learning the actual meaning of things.

[Mr. Ron]

anyway....

[TheDMV]

anyway....

you killed the thread fool.

[Mr. Ron]

you killed the thread fool.
No, i'm trying to end this annoying debate over the meaning of a word.

[Reaganista]

well annoyingness is relative

[TheDMV]

No, i'm trying to end this annoying debate over the meaning of a word.

I know, I was kidding around. :(

[Mr. Ron]

I know, I was kidding around. :(
It's ok, I <3 you all the same.

[669 the neighbor of the beast]

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

* well it blots that word out to prove my point, So I guess I can't use the "n" word

[Illmatic]

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

please stop talking

[Amit]

Al Roker?

nigga please

He is as black as Ronald Reagan

haha

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

hahahahaha

[rbv]

phucked is filipino and she's one of the mx elite.

[Amit]

hey what about that eggo guy

[rbv]

idk wat hapened

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

75% of my high school is filipino.

omg racism.

[Amit]

in my school white people are the minority

omg heaven

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

on my green and blue planet white are the minority also

omg eventual total browness culminating!

/me is a 100% pure blood brown Indian. Ojibwe that is.

[Amit]

i like what russel peters said about the impending combination and homogenous nature of skin colours

"sooner or later, an indian or a chinese person is going to hump you"

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

roflhahaha

ill have to tell my kids that one

[Merkaba]

**** a racist.

[Zoroaster]

If rep was still around, Zoroaster would be getting a laugh and a neg-rep from me right now.

I guess I'll just laugh. Even Trilemma makes more sense when he tries to belittle homosexuality.

At the very least, I have scruples. I believe in people, in law, in civility. Your choice to endorse homosexual activists is ultimately the wrong one; and in due course you'll come to realize this.

[Amit]

At the very least, I have scruples. I believe in people, in law, in civility. Your choice to endorse homosexual activists is ultimately the wrong one; and in due course you'll come to realize this.

blah blah hellfire and brimstone

you're like the guy who sits around on internet forums and flames people because their choice in music is wrong

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Your choice to endorse homosexual activists is ultimately the wrong one; and in due course you'll come to realize this.isnt that a zinger

[Dave de Sylvia]

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

* well it blots that word out to prove my point, So I guess I can't use the "n" word
why can black people hate blacks and not me

[Kids_For_Christ]

YES!! 4 pages and no aussie jokes.....phew....
oh and another thing, most of my friends r either black or greek or kiwi and all i do is make jokes with em (specially "in the dark" jokes with my black buddy) and yeah they can take a joke same as i can wen they call me a poor white pothead...mind u its tru...:smoke: anyways thats my 2 cents
EDIT: oh **** i just realised there's 11 pages.....damn

[Otherside]

At the very least, I have scruples. I believe in people, in law, in civility. Your choice to endorse homosexual activists is ultimately the wrong one; and in due course you'll come to realize this.

blah blah blah hellfire and brimstone

Stop being so godamn self-righteous, no one cares about you're irrational and improvable opinions.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

At the very least, I have scruples. I believe in people, in law, in civility. Your choice to endorse homosexual activists is ultimately the wrong one; and in due course you'll come to realize this.

Your choice to denounce homosexuality is ultimately the wrong one.

Oh man, I'm good. :rolleyes:

[Zoroaster]

Social liberalism and hedonism aren't exactly what I'd deem positive. Then again, to each his own, right?

[Mr. Ron]

There are 12 minorities in my whole school. I counted them.

[Zoroaster]

Stop being so godamn self-righteous, no one cares about you're irrational and improvable opinions.

It's so much easier for you to revert to asinine name-calling than actually countering my assertions, namely that the homosexual movement is entirely a sexual one and therefore hedonistic by definition.

[Amit]

blah blah blah hellfire and brimstone

Stop being so godamn self-righteous, no one cares about you're irrational and improvable opinions.

wtf the first part of that post was something i posted in this thread where did my post go =\

[TheDMV]

It's so much easier for you to revert to asinine name-calling than actually countering my assertions, namely that the homosexual movement is entirely a sexual one and therefore hedonistic by definition.

I think your points could be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't carry yourself so high and mighty about everything.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

and if he engaged in sensible discussion

[TheDMV]

and if he engaged in sensible discussion

This has worked in the past.

[Zoroaster]

What constitutes soi-disant "sensible discussion"? Conceding ground every once in a while? Or rather, capitulating altogether to the overwhelmingly slanted views of socially "conscious" youngsters? I'll continue to further my ideas about human behaviour and the universe. Granted, they might not be infallible or absolute, but to me, they are far more nuanced than the opinions perpetuated by a group of teenagers conditioned to tolerate everything indiscriminately. Besides, the unreasonable militarism with which you gun down any dissenting opinions should be reason enough for me to discredit your case altogether.

[TheDMV]

What constitutes soi-disant "sensible discussion"? Conceding ground every once in a while? Or rather, capitulating altogether to the overwhelmingly slanted views of socially "conscious" youngsters? I'll continue to further my ideas about human behaviour and the universe. Granted, they might not be infallible or absolute, but to me, they are far more nuanced than the opinions perpetuated by a group of teenagers conditioned to tolerate everything indiscriminately. Besides, the unreasonable militarism with which you gun down any dissenting opinions should be reason enough for me to discredit your case altogether.

I think your points could be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't carry yourself so high and mighty about everything.

read here please

[Amit]

Besides, the unreasonable militarism with which you gun down any dissenting opinions should be reason enough for me to discredit your case altogether.

oh the irony oh lord brahma the irony

[sr800bkBassist]

It's so much easier for you to revert to asinine name-calling than actually countering my assertions, namely that the homosexual movement is entirely a sexual one and therefore hedonistic by definition.
so what would you say about two homosexuals IN LOVE?
who abstain from sexual intercourse as much as any straight person, and are together because they LOVE eachother?

[Otherside]

It's so much easier for you to revert to asinine name-calling than actually countering my assertions, namely that the homosexual movement is entirely a sexual one and therefore hedonistic by definition.

your argument fails when you make the assertion that all homosexual endeavors are a result of lust and not of love, and therefore insinuate that homosexuals by nature are not capable of love of any sort.

k.


wtf the first part of that post was something i posted in this thread where did my post go =\

i stole/ate it

[Illmatic]

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

* well it blots that word out to prove my point, So I guess I can't use the "n" word

******

whoops it does the same thing to me and I'm black

so um how did that prove your point

[justinw]

umm

dictionary.com's definitions are respect and hate make it clear that you cant feel both
Of course you can, there's bands I hate yet still respect them as musicians.

[sr800bkBassist]

it will always be ok for every race except the white race to make racist humor. Its Ok for a black man to say ****** but not a white man. Its ok for a gay person to say fag but not a straight person. But then a black man can call a white man honky or cracker and thats ok. there are double standerds to the race issues

* well it blots that word out to prove my point, So I guess I can't use the "n" word
i can't support or denounce that idea since i really could care less, but i can give you the reason for it.

white people have NEVER been oppressed for being white. sure, white people have found themselves oppressed under dictatorships, but never has a genocide against all white become a threat or an enslavement of whites become prevelant.

so when someone of non-white decent says "cracker" to a white person, it means nothing at all. no horrible, blood-stained history, nothing.
when a white person says the "n" word to a black person, it's bringing up all the years of hate, slavery, oppression, etc.

[sr800bkBassist]

Of course you can, there's bands I hate yet still respect them as musicians.
true, but you can not hate the members yet still respect the members.

[Illmatic]

Exactly. That's why Native American charicatures (like the sports logos that have come under fire), Spanish ones (Speedy Gonzales cartoons and the Frito Bandito) and black caricatures (all those old Warner Bros. cartoons, Aunt Jemima...the "n" word counts too) and slurs against them and jokes about them are always more contested than those for whites (the only negative symbols I can think of are the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the movie The Boondock Saints). In the case of a minority, those are symbols of second-class citizenship and negative stereotypes/images that we (or they for Native Americans) have been forced to live with for centuries. White people have never had that problem.

[Mr. Ron]

i can't support or denounce that idea since i really could care less, but i can give you the reason for it.

white people have NEVER been oppressed for being white. sure, white people have found themselves oppressed under dictatorships, but never has a genocide against all white become a threat or an enslavement of whites become prevelant.

so when someone of non-white decent says "cracker" to a white person, it means nothing at all. no horrible, blood-stained history, nothing.
when a white person says the "n" word to a black person, it's bringing up all the years of hate, slavery, oppression, etc.
But that doesn't mean that it's ok to insult white people just because our race hasn't experianced any large scale atrocity.

[Illmatic]

Exactly. That's why Native American charicatures (like the sports logos that have come under fire), Spanish ones (Speedy Gonzales cartoons and the Frito Bandito) and black caricatures (all those old Warner Bros. cartoons, Aunt Jemima...the "n" word counts too) and slurs against them and jokes about them are always more contested than those for whites (the only negative symbols I can think of are the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the movie The Boondock Saints). In the case of a minority, those are symbols of second-class citizenship and negative stereotypes/images that we (or they for Native Americans) have been forced to live with for centuries. White people have never had that problem.

ahem

[sr800bkBassist]

But that doesn't mean that it's ok to insult white people just because our race hasn't experianced any large scale atrocity.
not saying it's ok, but it's just a matter of ignorance on the whites' side (i actually am white, contrary to the claim of my subtitle thing) and any racial insults towards white people hold hardly any ground or effect.

[Mr. Ron]

not saying it's ok, but it's just a matter of ignorance on the whites' side (i actually am white, contrary to the claim of my subtitle thing) and any racial insults towards white people hold hardly any ground or effect.
True, just sayin'.

[El Krunk]

not saying it's ok, but it's just a matter of ignorance on the whites' side (i actually am white, contrary to the claim of my subtitle thing) and any racial insults towards white people hold hardly any ground or effect.

Maybe you forgot this little tid-bit of information, but Jews are white and there was little thing a few years back that we like to call World War II and yeah.

[Amit]

Maybe you forgot this little tid-bit of information, but Jews are white and there was little thing a few years back that we like to call World War II and yeah.

maybe you forgot this little tid-bit of information, but russians are white and there was this little thing a few years back that we like to call joseph stalin killing more russians than hitler killed jews

anyway no one refers to ethnic jews as crackers or honkys or "white people"

maybe if you actually knew some jews you'd realize this

[Mr. Ron]

Do any of you find this offensive?

http://niggastolemybike.ytmnsfw.com/

[JonM]

Fair point, Amit, but we do benefit from the privileges of white skin. This wasn't always so, and overt anti-Semitism is still a problem, but for the most part, certainly in the United States, Jews have overcome racial stigma.

When I saw this topic, I got really excited that people were talking about race on mx, but then I read the whole thing and got really discouraged about all of it. I think homophobia on mx deserves its own thread, and I think that we should make an effort to start this discussion of race again, and try to keep it as serious as possible. It has pretty much degenerated into juvenile blathering and the occasional witty response that only people who care about race even get.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Ethnic jews are north african, generally of semitic and arabic origin. It's only European and American jews who have some white in them.

[Zoroaster]

so what would you say about two homosexuals IN LOVE?
who abstain from sexual intercourse as much as any straight person, and are together because they LOVE eachother?

They don't exist.

Seriously though, the homosexual activists that are vying for influence over the state of affairs are exactly the ones that are representative of the flamboyant movement we see on display everytime there's a Gay Pride parade. Trying to separate a culture of hedonism and promiscuousness from homosexuals is incongruent with the way the homosexual movement defines itself, namely as a sexual movement. Let me exemplify that a little bit better. If homosexuals didn't embrace a liberal lifestyle, why else would we be observing the prevalence of AIDS in that particular demographic group?

your argument fails when you make the assertion that all homosexual endeavors are a result of lust and not of love, and therefore insinuate that homosexuals by nature are not capable of love of any sort.

Sexual emancipation is central to being gay. In fact, why else would one want to redefine ones sexual preferences?

At any rate, while you may persist in labelling me an incorrigible bigot, I refuse to accept that homosexuals have a genuine claim to get married and form familes.

[Otherside]

Sexual emancipation is central to being gay. In fact, why else would one want to redefine ones sexual preferences?


your argument fails here when you assume that homosexuals choose their sexual prefference when in reality theres no backing to that at all. to say that two homosexuals cant love each other just because you think they only have sex to enjoy themselves is a level below ignorant.

and dont you live in norway or something? how much exposure to gay people do you even have?

[halfdeadhippo]

and dont you live in norway or something? how much exposure to gay people do you even have?The only story I've ever heard involving a gay man in Norway was the one where Emperor's drummer stabbed the guy because he couldn't handle being hit on by a guy. Even if he doesn't live in Norway, Zoroaster'd fit right in.

[El Krunk]

Even if he doesn't live in Norway, Zoroaster'd fit right in.

The guy sounds like someone out of the dark ages. :lol:

[sr800bkBassist]

Maybe you forgot this little tid-bit of information, but Jews are white and there was little thing a few years back that we like to call World War II and yeah.
i covered that.

they weren't oppressed for being white.

[Otherside]

The guy sounds like someone out of the dark ages. :lol:

you are just not tr00 enough to understand the kvlt ways.

[sr800bkBassist]

If homosexuals didn't embrace a liberal lifestyle, why else would we be observing the prevalence of AIDS in that particular demographic group?

because, homosexuals have just as much of a sexual relation as heterosexuals.
the difference?
transfer of bodily fluids is halted in man-woman relations when the male wears a condom and uses the typical form of "entry".

however, in a gay sexual relation, the man will often NOT wear a condom thinking that it will be safe having anal sex without protection. however, the tissue in that region is sensative and will tear easily, causing bleeding. the meeting of the bodily fluid and this open wound causes the transfer.

[El Krunk]

i covered that.

they weren't oppressed for being white.

fair 'nuff

you are just not tr00 enough to understand the kvlt ways.

This is true.

/me puts away Darkthrone albums and listens to Metallica

:cut cut:

[Mr. Ron]

fair 'nuff



This is true.

/me puts away Darkthrone albums and listens to Metallica

:cut cut:

wtf? Not kvlt at all.

[El Krunk]

wtf? Not kvlt at all.

Yeah, that was the point.

[terronez]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carn
the only things Africans can grip are bags of rice and the bags of sugar they need to haul down my plantation.

HAHAHAHAHA.

so I said this "you rasist bastard why dont you shut the **** up and think before you say somthing like that" im was venting some anger at that point but still...

these were some replies
"Here we have it ladies and gentlemen a PRIME example of whats f-ucked up in our world today, the notion that everything has to be so politically correct, and if its not, that person deserves to be punished. You can't seem to crack a harmless joke about race, sexuality, or religion with out someone getting their panties in a little wad. Although, I do agree at times such harsh jokes can be taken to offense, yet what is it YOUR job to freak out? I find your Nazi-esque actions towards humor, just as prejudice as his against race. I think we all have friends of diff. races that we are comfortable enough to jole with about these things, who is it you to say he should be banned? Taste the ****ing rainbow squirrel bag.. it's life. **** you.

Politely,

W. Tang."

and...

"There is another example of racism... Well discrimination anyways...

Racist jokes are very popular today... For a group of African Americans to make a joke about a white guy, or the other way around, isn't unusual... Although posting such a joke on a public forum like MF should not be done, because of the different races, etc. that are here...

It is harmless houmour when it doesn't harm anyone who hears it... If I were of African descendence then this thread would make me sick... How such a question about African grip turned into racist jokes, not one, but many over and over and over...

-DM"

Personally being black I find this offensive and unaceptable, I want to know if you agree or are you rasist to?
I can see where you take offense to that but you did sort of overreact and actually started the fight. And, you never did any of that. Slavery and segregation was abolished before you were born. Someone isn't racist for telling one joke. I tell black jokes all the time. Black people could me a cracker all day but if i said ******, even once, they would freak out.

What do you say to a black man in a suit?
Would the defendant please rise.

There you go. Am i all of the sudden racist now because I told a joke?

[Reaganista]

jews have been 'white' since the second world war same as any other 'white' people

[lfantwister]

They don't exist.
Uh I beg to differ here. I go to an allgirls school, and homosexuality is very prevalent. Love exists there, all right. And it doesn't always coincide with lust. Love does not equal lust. Even in sexual relationships of the heterosexual nature, you can love someone without having sexual relations.

Seriously though, the homosexual activists that are vying for influence over the state of affairs are exactly the ones that are representative of the flamboyant movement we see on display everytime there's a Gay Pride parade. Trying to separate a culture of hedonism and promiscuousness from homosexuals is incongruent with the way the homosexual movement defines itself, namely as a sexual movement. If you have a problem with sexual promiscuity and openness, gays aren't the group you're looking for. Please enter a college or high school campus and then say that gays are worse. Popular culture demands promiscuity even (especially) in heterosexual relations. Gays if anything are better than most straight people about that.
Let me exemplify that a little bit better. If homosexuals didn't embrace a liberal lifestyle, why else would we be observing the prevalence of AIDS in that particular demographic group? If you look at the stats, AIDS is increasing most rapidly in young women of the heterosexual persuasion. There used to be a big problem for gay men with regards to AIDS in the 80s, because they didn't know any better, but now that people are aware of the effects of their actions, the number of AIDS cases in gay men has significantly dropped.
Sexual emancipation is central to being gay. In fact, why else would one want to redefine ones sexual preferences? by "redefine" you mean accept?

If you take issue with "sexual emancipation" do not look to gays as your target group. Look at young straight people--how they dress, how they act, etc etc.... Aren't they just as bad, or worse, from the "moral" standpoint you are basing your arguments on?

[Zoroaster]

your argument fails here when you assume that homosexuals choose their sexual prefference when in reality theres no backing to that at all. to say that two homosexuals cant love each other just because you think they only have sex to enjoy themselves is a level below ignorant.

Earlier on in this thread you told me something along the lines that assuming to understand the dynamics of becoming homosexual would constitute thin conjecture, or at best projection. If that is true, I don't see how you can forefend those very same dynamics without resorting to the same amount of conjecturing or projection - unless of course you're gay, in which case I'll treat you as an anomaly.

and dont you live in norway or something? how much exposure to gay people do you even have?

I presently reside in London and trust me, having walked through Soho many a Saturday night, I've come to realize just how sexually laden the homosexual movement is.

because, homosexuals have just as much of a sexual relation as heterosexuals.
the difference?
transfer of bodily fluids is halted in man-woman relations when the male wears a condom and uses the typical form of "entry".

however, in a gay sexual relation, the man will often NOT wear a condom thinking that it will be safe having anal sex without protection. however, the tissue in that region is sensative and will tear easily, causing bleeding. the meeting of the bodily fluid and this open wound causes the transfer.

In other words, gay people are utterly irresponsible and, by virtue of what you're saying, incredibly stupid.

Uh I beg to differ here. I go to an allgirls school, and homosexuality is very prevalent. Love exists there, all right. And it doesn't always coincide with lust. Love does not equal lust. Even in sexual relationships of the heterosexual nature, you can love someone without having sexual relations.

While I can appreciate I should never have introduced something as tenuous and conceptually brittle as love into the picture, the promsicuousness of homosexuals is lauded to the point where exhibitionism and a hyperactive sex-life is inextricably coupled with the mainstream of the homosexual movement. Again, I refer to any "convention" organized by Gay Rights activists.

If you have a problem with sexual promiscuity and openness, gays aren't the group you're looking for. Please enter a college or high school campus and then say that gays are worse. Popular culture demands promiscuity even (especially) in heterosexual relations. Gays if anything are better than most straight people about that.

And I equally condemn sexual promiscuity on our side of the fence. Two wrongs don't make a right. Oh, and just so you know, I contest the inference you make about sexual activity being higher amongst college males than homosexuals.

If you look at the stats, AIDS is increasing most rapidly in young women of the heterosexual persuasion. There used to be a big problem for gay men with regards to AIDS in the 80s, because they didn't know any better, but now that people are aware of the effects of their actions, the number of AIDS cases in gay men has significantly dropped.

That may very well be, but instead of reverting to a rather fabricated portrayal of homosexuals as victimized and sympathetic, why don't you get to grips with what you're exactly saying. That is, if the pervasiveness of AIDS is not in an attenuating trend, shouldn't the social liberalism, and consequently promiscuity that accompanies it, be condemned? I sure think so.

If you take issue with "sexual emancipation" do not look to gays as your target group. Look at young straight people--how they dress, how they act, etc etc.... Aren't they just as bad, or worse, from the "moral" standpoint you are basing your arguments on?

They are bad, I'll grant you that. But while heterosexuals have a choice between committing acts of love and lust, the decision to redefine ones sexuality is an entirely lustful one as it were. So while you may vehemently disagree with me, I think your unquestioning tolerance is boorishly slanted in this issue. Otherwise, why would you rail against sexual promiscuity as it pertains to heterosexuals but somehow sanction it when gays engage in it?

[The Musician]

Nigga please...

[El Krunk]

They are bad, I'll grant you that. But while heterosexuals have a choice between committing acts of love and lust, the decision to redefine ones sexuality is an entirely lustful one as it were. So while you may vehemently disagree with me, I think your unquestioning tolerance is boorishly slanted in this issue. Otherwise, why would you rail against sexual promiscuity as it pertains to heterosexuals but somehow sanction it when gays engage in it?

Your argument carries this unfathomable deference between your ideas of morality and promiscuity. The level of promiscuity prevelant in any person, sexual orientation aside, does not define the character of that individual as a whole. In many cases, a homosexual male never realizes his lack of physical attraction for the female gender until engaging in sexual intercourse with said woman. It isn't simply a matter of love vs. lust so much as it is a physical reaction rooted somewhere within a genetic anomaly in their sense of natural order.

Nature is full of genetic twists - two different colored eyes, an extra finger or toe - and homosexuality is simply one of those natural phenomenons. Homosexuality has even been observed in nature among animals of predominantly heterosexual preference. Now, if you're a Bible follower, you should know that animals are in no way on the same level as humans, so to call it a moral deviance among those creatures would be grossly innacurate. Now my question to you is this: if homosexuality occurs among lesser animals and is impossibly a moral deviance, then how can you write the same phenomenon off among the higher species as such? Surely it would have to reach the same conclusion for both sides of the equation, no?

As a side note in regards to the assumption of loveless relations between homosexual individuals - my step-uncle is a homosexual. He and his partner have several adopted children, all being raised with healthy, religious morals and an open mind. Those children are in no way being converted to homosexuality as I'm sure you would assume. All are perfectly heterosexual and not only love both their fathers as they would if they were to have a father and a mother, but they're given the same love that you would expect out of any heterosexual couple for their offspring. Love exists on both sides of the fence, regardless of what you've come to believe.

[Illmatic]

Oh, and just so you know, I contest the inference you make about sexual activity being higher amongst college males than homosexuals.

Uh, ever been to college?

[Zoroaster]

In many cases, a homosexual male never realizes his lack of physical attraction for the female gender until engaging in sexual intercourse with said woman. It isn't simply a matter of love vs. lust so much as it is a physical reaction rooted somewhere within a genetic anomaly in their sense of natural order.

How then can you account for the behaviour of homosexuals and how they are quite conscious of their sexuality, which is evinced by their flamboyant mannerisms?

if homosexuality occurs among lesser animals and is impossibly a moral deviance

That's strictly not true. First of all, I don't accept the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined. Because behavioural traits of people stem from how they choose to interact with their outside environment - which is a consenus position held by most psychologists, a homosexual person is no more different than ordinary people insofar as they are still vested with the ability to make choices and decisions - most of which "deviate," as you put it, from what would be considered normative behaviour. In my mind, the act of redefining ones sexuality, which ipso facto is a lustful one, renders the decision itself an abandonment of the morals we otherwise associate with our societies, what with the recognized position that the family unit is the building block upon which society rests. Threaten the conventions of that family unit; that building block, and you're in effect submitting the collective culture to a system of belief that espouses social liberalism, irresponsibility, and hedonism. I don't want to see that happen.

Similarly, a point you raised earler has equally alarming implications. Coupling homosexuality with genetics is by admission equivalent to saying there is no free will, i.e. that our behaviour is rooted in biology, not psychology. I don't believe that, nor should you.

[El Krunk]

How then can you account for the behaviour of homosexuals and how they are quite conscious of their sexuality, which is evinced by their flamboyant mannerisms?

Excessive flamboyancy is a common trait among any rights movement. You can't tell me feminism isn't a sexually flamboyant movement. As you said, homosexuals in foundation are the same as any other human. Therefore, every single homosexual on the face of the globe is not a flamboyant preacher of gay rights and integration. To lump an entire demographic into such a simple-minded stereotype is no better than Hitler's approach to national-socialism and the eradication of inferior races.

That's strictly not true. First of all, I don't accept the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined. Because behavioural traits of people stem from how they choose to interact with their outside environment - which is a consenus position held by most psychologists, a homosexual person is no more different than ordinary people insofar as they are still vested with the ability to make choices and decisions - most of which "deviate," as you put it, from what would be considered normative behaviour. In my mind, the act of redefining ones sexuality, which ipso facto is a lustful one, renders the decision itself an abandonment of the morals we otherwise associate with our societies, what with the recognized position that the family unit is the building block upon which society rests. Threaten the conventions of that family unit; that building block, and you're in effect submitting the collective culture to a system of belief that espouses social liberalism, irresponsibility, and hedonism. I don't want to see that happen.

I'm not sure if you're arguing for the nature vs. nurture aspect of this scenario or against it. You tend to throw in more filler than real content when you attempt to make your points.

If this were a nature vs. nurture scenario however, that too would be an grossly innacurate assumption. The dominance of homosexual orientation in an individual has been proven in many cases to be uncorrelated with said individual's environment. Psychology is in no way a superior field to genetics when it comes to determining the root of a person's sexual orientation. If you take the time to read up on many "coming out of the closet" cases, you'd find that a majority of homosexuals are as such from the time of childhood even though those homosexuals come from a heterosexual background, a loving family and a normal social life. Writing off this opposing sexual preference as a psychological deficiency on this large of a scale is ignorant.

Also, I recommend you read up on the studies about feral children. They're a prime example of nature vs. nurture and support the fact that if homosexuality were a concious moral deviance, it would have to be influenced by that person's surroundings, which in many cases, has nothing to do with homosexual alignment.

Similarly, a point you raised earler has equally alarming implications. Coupling homosexuality with genetics is by admission equivalent to saying there is no free will, i.e. that our behaviour is rooted in biology, not psychology. I don't believe that, nor should you.

Free will is contradicted by God's master plan, regardless. Also, how can you claim that behavior roots from psychology with no reference to genetics? Are the mentally retarded not a result of genetic deficiencies? Surely you can't write off their behavior is a simple psychological issue?

[Zoroaster]

Excessive flamboyancy is a common trait among any rights movement. You can't tell me feminism isn't a sexually flamboyant movement. As you said, homosexuals in foundation are the same as any other human. Therefore, every single homosexual on the face of the globe is not a flamboyant preacher of gay rights and integration. To lump an entire demographic into such a simple-minded stereotype is no better than Hitler's approach to national-socialism and the eradication of inferior races.


That's redundant. The impression lent by the homosexual community is one markedly, and dare I say unabashedly, sexual. Stereotypes may have inherent generalizations to them, but that still doesn't sustain the credence of your assertion that flamboyant homosexuals are a marginal fraction of the demographic group as a whole. And again, I repeat, the ones forefending the rights of gays to marry and form families are a representative sample of the population espousing social liberalism and therefore hedonism.

I'm not sure if you're arguing for the nature vs. nurture aspect of this scenario or against it. You tend to throw in more filler than real content when you attempt to make your points.

That's altogether superfluous and beneath you. Try to address my points without reverting to overly bland hogwash.

Also, I recommend you read up on the studies about feral children. They're a prime example of nature vs. nurture and support the fact that if homosexuality were a concious moral deviance, it would have to be influenced by that person's surroundings, which in many cases, has nothing to do with homosexual alignment.

That makes no sense whatsoever. On the one hand you're positing that as a morally conscious people our morals and thus actions are influenced by our environment, and then you follow that up by saying homosexual "alignment" transcends moral choice. It doesn't! At which point you should owe up to your statements, and concede I have a point.

Free will is contradicted by God's master plan, regardless. Also, how can you claim that behavior roots from psychology with no reference to genetics? Are the mentally retarded not a result of genetic deficiencies? Surely you can't write off their behavior is a simple psychological issue?

At this point, I would advice you to stop talking. Prevenient grace is an intrinsic concept in the Bible. Unless you've never exposed yourself to the literature, which is the impression you're sending, I don't see how you can pass any valid value judgment on this score.

When it comes to mental retardation, there's no question of a doubt as to whether their impaired faculty of inference is resultant of deviant genetics or human behaviour. That's however an altogether different scenario when we're comparing it to human behaviour in isolation, which presupposes acute faculties of inference. Unless you're willing to submit that homosexuals are stripped of these faculties, your argument is moot and misleading.

On a different side-note, if there was such a thing as a gay-gene and we could trace it in premature babies, wouldn't the gay movement pull a complete 180 on the question of abortion? I mean, it's only reasonable that we would think a parent of this modern day in age would likewise choose to abort a baby of mental deficiencies just like they would one with the straight-gene deficiency. It's again a matter of being consistent.

[Otherside]

Earlier on in this thread you told me something along the lines that assuming to understand the dynamics of becoming homosexual would constitute thin conjecture, or at best projection. If that is true, I don't see how you can forefend those very same dynamics without resorting to the same amount of conjecturing or projection - unless of course you're gay, in which case I'll treat you as an anomaly.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/MinxCat/bunny_pancake.jpg

Can you point me to a post in here where I said that? I'm pretty sure the first time I responded to you in this thread was This little gem right here (http://musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510999&postcount=188), so I don't really understand what your asking.

[lfantwister]

While I can appreciate I should never have introduced something as tenuous and conceptually brittle as love into the picture, the promsicuousness of homosexuals is lauded to the point where exhibitionism and a hyperactive sex-life is inextricably coupled with the mainstream of the homosexual movement. Again, I refer to any "convention" organized by Gay Rights activists. When's the last time you went to a "convention" organsied by gay rights activists? The whole point is they want rights--they don't want encourage a hyperactive sex-life (for the most part)


And I equally condemn sexual promiscuity on our side of the fence. Two wrongs don't make a right. Oh, and just so you know, I contest the inference you make about sexual activity being higher amongst college males than homosexuals. ourside of the fence? Speak for yourself please. No seriously, walk onto a college campus and tell me that straight people are more prudish than gays. Honestly try it.


That may very well be, but instead of reverting to a rather fabricated portrayal of homosexuals as victimized and sympathetic, why don't you get to grips with what you're exactly saying. That is, if the pervasiveness of AIDS is not in an attenuating trend, shouldn't the social liberalism, and consequently promiscuity that accompanies it, be condemned? I sure think so.
No I dont think you understood what I'm saying. Even with the rise of "social liberalism, and consequently promiscuity that accompanies it", the rate of new AIDS cases has dramatically decreased. It is safer from a medical standpoint to have a more open sexual culture because then people are aware of all of the repercussions of their actions.
They are bad, I'll grant you that. But while heterosexuals have a choice between committing acts of love and lust, the decision to redefine ones sexuality is an entirely lustful one as it were. So while you may vehemently disagree with me, I think your unquestioning tolerance is boorishly slanted in this issue. Otherwise, why would you rail against sexual promiscuity as it pertains to heterosexuals but somehow sanction it when gays engage in it? well, I'm not railing against sexual promiscuity in heterosexuals, I was just pointing out that you would ahve to, in order to be consistent with your views about gays. First off, it's not a decision to redefine yourself as gay. You are born with it. And please keep in mind that not all companionship is based on lust.
That's redundant. The impression lent by the homosexual community is one markedly, and dare I say unabashedly, sexual. Stereotypes may have inherent generalizations to them, but that still doesn't sustain the credence of your assertion that flamboyant homosexuals are a marginal fraction of the demographic group as a whole. And again, I repeat, the ones forefending the rights of gays to marry and form families are a representative sample of the population espousing social liberalism and therefore hedonism.
social liberalism=hedonism??

On a different side-note, if there was such a thing as a gay-gene and we could trace it in premature babies, wouldn't the gay movement pull a complete 180 on the question of abortion? I mean, it's only reasonable that we would think a parent of this modern day in age would likewise choose to abort a baby of mental deficiencies just like they would one with the straight-gene deficiency. It's again a matter of being consistent.
Let's talk about discrimination real quick...

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Hell no I wouldn't abort a gay baby. That little son of a bitch will be pulling in big money by the time he's 21, and he's never gonna get some wench pregnant and get a shotgun wedding. Plus gay people rock. I'm such a fag-hag.

[holy crapper]

I Hate Black People!