OT: I find it disturbing I'm living in a society that is against beheadings of criminals sentence to death but will torture criminals sentenced to death with a prolonged and painful death by untested chemicals. If I had to choose one or the other, please cut my fucking head off as it's much more humane that what we're doing with lethal injection these days.
Sometimes there isn't a better mousetrap. The guillotine is probably still the best method to execute someone. It's swift, and more than likely painless. I recently read that the drugs used for lethal injections are expired because pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing them. They're better off just filling the room with carbon monoxide, and the criminal will just fall asleep and finally die from a lack of oxygen.
Sometimes there isn't a better mousetrap. The guillotine is probably still the best method to execute someone. It's swift, and more than likely painless. I recently read that the drugs used for lethal injections are expired because pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing them. They're better off just filling the room with carbon monoxide, and the criminal will just fall asleep and finally die from a lack of oxygen.
There are countless tested and painless ways to die but anything that results in flesh being exposed or blood spilled it considered unethical, but we'll torture people and then say, "we didn't know that would happen," is fine. I don't see how these people can sleep at night.
To be fair, God has to be gay or female. No way the world would look and smell this nice if it was designed by a straight guy. Just go into any single straight guy's bathroom and take a deep breath.
It highlights an important aspect of religion IMO, which is that you can make up your own interpretation as you go.
If that's your sweeping perspective of every religion, sure. By the way, if you've been exposed to bathrooms used by mostly girls, it ain't good.
Sometimes there isn't a better mousetrap. The guillotine is probably still the best method to execute someone. It's swift, and more than likely painless. I recently read that the drugs used for lethal injections are expired because pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing them. They're better off just filling the room with carbon monoxide, and the criminal will just fall asleep and finally die from a lack of oxygen.
I’ve always liked the idea that death row inmates immediately become organ donors. Upon execution, they’re taken to a hospital, opened up, their organs are removed, and they’re just left to die on the table.
Their organs go to the best possible use (rather than be tainted with poison) and they’re executed, removing whatever threat they posed.
What an awful, disgusting video, by the way. I don’t often get to the point of ‘seething’, but it has me thus at its hypocrisy.
I never really understand why gay people have to make it a point to be public. Steve didn't send an open letter announcing he was straight. Personal life should be separate from business life.
In 2014, with films, books and discussions and gay pride marches and more I still find it really, really, really exasperating that people can still come out with such ignorant statements.
The vast majority of humans identify as heterosexual (if they have thought about it), therefore every baby, toddler, nursery school kid, teenager, young adult, adult and elderly person is assumed to be heterosexual until proved otherwise.
Imagine this were pretty much reversed and the majority of humans identified as homosexual. It would be assumed that YOU would be attracted to the same sex when older, that you would date a nice young boy (assuming for the purpose that you are male) and that in time you would meet a man and fall in love and set up home. People continually ask you if you've met a "special" man yet? You evade the question. In your first week in a new job, a work colleague asks if you will be bringing your boyfriend to the company's social dance. You feel awkward. Given that you have just started, and knowing that the company has fired two workers who came out as heterosexual you say that you have no partner. It is a lie of course as you have lived with a woman for three years but only your very closest friends know. You haven't told the gay people you mix with yet because you don't know how they will take it.
On TV, in the cinema, in the classic novels (and the new ones) you read along with advertisements for computers, cars, coffee, carpets, garden equipment and much much more, you see happy relaxed and intimate gay couples. You long to see someone, anyone, in this endless parade who expresses romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, that gives you a sense that you are not alone and there there are others like you.
And then the head of Plum Inc, the largest tech company in the world, announces that he is heterosexual and that he is proud of who he is and that keeping his sexuality hidden from the world was damaging to his sense of ease, was implicitly saying that there was something wrong with him and that he wants to be honest now. He realises that customers in some countries may decide not to buy products from a company with a heterosexual CEO, but he thinks the benefits of honesty and being a role model for others is worth the risk.
As you read his statement you cheer - at last. You decide that next year you will finally tell your friends that you are going to be a father. You know that may be hard for some of them to hear, but you know, deep down, that to continually present yourself as someone else is no longer for you. You will just be yourself, no more, no less. You are finally going to "come out".
Yes, i agree, private life should be private, not "public".
Maybe. Maybe not. But realise that, if you were paying attention, you would see that most heterosexuals make their private life public. Every. Single. Day.
There are countless tested and painless ways to die but anything that results in flesh being exposed or blood spilled it considered unethical, but we'll torture people and then say, "we didn't know that would happen," is fine. I don't see how these people can sleep at night.
[VIDEO]
Yet a 2 he execution is 'ethical'. I hope the family sues for the cruel and unusual punishment the prisoner received. Funny how even a federal judge shares my idea that a guillotine is best.
Outside of hai friends etc nobody KNEW anything. Just like for weeks before a keynote nobody really knows anything about the iPhone. We know the rumors but they can still end up false. I mean we 'knew' this year there was going to be an iPad Pro and a new apple TV but guess what, we 'knew' wrong.
The why he didn't say it sooner is Tims business. Perhaps he just got tired of the rumors and decided to just say it even though he doesn't owe the world such a statement. Perhaps someone close to him convinced him that by not saying it he was kind of a hypocrite. Perhaps something happened in his personal life like finding out some closeted gay kid in his home town tried to commit suicide cause he felt everyone would hate and scorn him for being gay. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. Nor should it matter that Tim is gay.
I agree entirely with this post. And yet, in today's celebrity-obsessed, paparazzi, gotcha media environment, a major public figure like Tim Cook is at risk if he tries to hide parts of his private life. Imagine the firestorm if some paparazzi caught a picture of Tim Cook walking down the street holding hands with another man, or kissing another man, or even something as simple as helping a man out of a car. Sure, I would love to think that it would be a non-event, but some guy looking for 15 minutes of fame is going to exploit it, we will have talking heads on the news and business channels talking about it, and most of all, we would have people coming out and saying, "Why is he hiding it? What abhorrent things is he doing with his gay playmates?
Tim Cook had full control by coming out as he did. He got out ahead of any scandal that could have developed or any rumors about exactly how he lives his life. For the people that say that it was a distraction, perhaps, but by doing it in this way, Tim Cook could control the message. It would have been much more detrimental to Apple as a corporation if he would have let the media paint a picture of his life that was totally false, and then have to defend the way that he lives.
I’ve always liked the idea that death row inmates immediately become organ donors. Upon execution, they’re taken to a hospital, opened up, their organs are removed, and they’re just left to die on the table.
Their organs go to the best possible use (rather than be tainted with poison) and they’re executed, removing whatever threat they posed.
What an awful, disgusting video, by the way. I don’t often get to the point of ‘seething’, but it has me thus at its hypocrisy.
That can be done immediately after a beheading. No poison, and no trauma to any vital organs.
Maybe. Maybe not. But realise that, if you were paying attention, you would see that most heterosexuals make their private life public. Every. Single. Day.
And if you looked around, you would see that the paparazzi media is looking for every bit of scandal they can find and/or manufacture. As much as Tim Cook wanted to keep his private life private (and that is exactly what he said in his interview), as the CEO of one of the biggest global companies (and especially as a bachelor), he has no choice - there is always someone looking to make a person of Cook's distinction private life public.
in Putin's Manly, Shirtless Russia, gays are confused with pedophiles as a kind of doctrinal matter
They might be coming to that conclusion by misinterpreting abuse stats. Girls are abused about 4x more than boys (so boys = 20% of abuse cases, it will vary by region) but if homosexuals are 2% of the population and half of those are women then 1% of the population is committing 20% of the child abuse (because 99% or so of reported abuse is by males), or in other words same-sex child abuse would be 25x more likely (relative to the population) than heterosexual. Sites like this take that angle:
but the abusers don't necessarily identify as gay so it skews the stats. When there are campaigns to lower the age of consent, that won't help either but it's not lower than heterosexuals:
And bisexual people have no choice but be attracted to men and women.
And pedophiles have no choice but be attracted to children.
And people whose mothers don't want them have no choice but to be aborted.
And thieves have no choice but to steal.
And murderers have no choice but to kill people.
Got it.
Let's assume this is true, we can also conclude that all those examples after the first are harmful to others. Bisexuality and homosexuality aren't. That's where society draws the line between what we accept and what we reject. Incestuous relationships on their own aren't harmful but there's a strong chance of their children having genetic abnormalities so society rejects incestuous relationships.
What is the harm caused by homosexual or bisexual relationships? If there isn't any then they are acceptable.
You raise an interesting point in your observation of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual, which therefore blackens homosexuality even more. How much of that is choice and how much is down to genes is open to debate, but historically, that is the uncomfortable truth.
Yes, obviously that's exactly what he meant. Now where did all my straw go?
If you were capable of reading the English language, you’d notice he gave no justification for his belief other than the amount of time the work had been made available, and he made this assertion three times. There is therefore only a single conclusion to be drawn from his statement. A strawman would be to claim any other reason for his belief.
So, it seems that Kinsey was too conservative in description of the variety of human sexuality. Not surprising since he started with no a priori knowledge.
If you google for actual current and past studies you get the same result.
BTW, Kinsey was purely a questionaire based research by the way. So, you'd have to state that people's own description of their own feelings and sexual experience is incorrect. Not something you can easily argue against even if you only took the result as merely qualitative; it is not.
That's rich coming from you on this subject.
You just made the argument that if your penis first in it then your penis belongs there, and if it fits in vagina it belongs there.
&&& Just saying that his view was based in a logical viewpoint.
I don't believe in this simplistic view of right/wrong and good/evil.
&&& It may be simple, but there is a right and a wrong.
1) In the same way I have no choice to be attracted to those of the opposite sex, especially if they are of a certain look? No. Now acting on those feelings are another thing entirely. I also have a natural lack of attraction for those I haven't gotten to know personally, even if I'm physically attracted to them.
&&& Acting on them is an important decision - not positive what you were saying there.
2) I find it really fucking disgusting that the topic of consenting adults having an emotional bond with other turns into a comparison to rape because homosexuality is mentioned.
&&& I had a feeling you'd think I was comparing the two. I was using pedophiles as an example of how a natural desire isn't always good or natural. You can take that knowledge and apply it to any area. Your original point was that if someone has a natural sexual desire, it's proof that they are doing something correctly.
1) Did you choose to not be gay? I certainly didn't choose to be heterosexual so why would I make the bizarre leap that all people are born with the genitalia of one sex and the brain makeup that matches it when we know how the sex organs are forms, that one can be born with both sex organs, that in some animals we can determine the sex organs with a slight change in temperature, and the complexity of the human brain. It definitely makes one wonder why certain people feel that sexual "preference" is, well, a preference. Maybe those individuals had to deny their own natural desires because they were afraid what society would think about them. In a fair world, that should make every single one of those people be happy that future generations won't have to hid like they did. It's akin to someone saying, "I didn't get to sit in the front of the bus so neither should you." Be happy that others won't have to suffer the same way and, hopefully, humanity can be more productive as a result.
&&& In a sense I choose to be heterosexual, because i choose not to think about guys in a sexual way. Maybe I would've been if I gave myself the option. No way of knowing. I believe there are people who are born with that desire, but just because I don't promote it doesn't mean I discrimate against it.
2) I'm not even convinced free will exists. Sure, you can make choices that aren't specifically programmed, but so can computers. We are the result of our genes. Perhaps these aberrations are genes being different for the sake of evolving the species, or perhaps, like the movie Jurassic Park, there are complexities in our biology that we don't yet understand that producing homosexuals naturally in order to lower the procreation rate of our species for the survival of our species. We know that homosexuality is a part of nature, but is it more common in societies with higher populations, worse air quality, less food, certain kind of stressors, higher use of detergents, etc.? Personally I'd think the homeostasis for survival of the species would be more easily met with increased sterilization over homosexuality.
&&& Trippy.
Here are a couple important court cases for civil rights in the US you should be aware:
Pretty sure being gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex. That's it. Sex does not have to be involved. Plenty of virgins out there that can attest to their sexual orientation.
Thanks for a straightforward answer. "...gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex..." exactly that is my point. If we were to then investigate this further, (which I'm not going to do here) then it's pretty easy to see that asking a few more questions based on your answer will show that 'gay' becomes a very nebulous concept, especially in relation to being not 'gay'. An example of of some of the pertinent questions I could ask would be ... 'if a 'gay' male were to get the horn upon seeing a comely female, would that make the person in reality 'not gay' or perhaps 'bisexual'. And of course we have to wonder what 'being attracted to' really means. For a male it may simply be being attracted to the way males deal with life and nothing at all to do with sex (as you have already said).
But you see the problem is that unless it is explicitly stated then the default idea that most people and certainly young people would have in mind when told that two males were in a gay relationship would be that they were in a sexual relationship, and I'm not going to go further on that. I guess you would agree that two males could call themselves 'gay' while still having no sexual relations with other males and only sexual relations with females. In other words, as I maintain, generally being 'gay' is a lifestyle choice, or even a political choice.
And it then follows that it does not seem right for so called 'gay' people to then foist their politics onto the institution of 'marriage' and thereby subvert the meaning of what marriage is and that predates religion.
Comments
Sometimes there isn't a better mousetrap. The guillotine is probably still the best method to execute someone. It's swift, and more than likely painless. I recently read that the drugs used for lethal injections are expired because pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing them. They're better off just filling the room with carbon monoxide, and the criminal will just fall asleep and finally die from a lack of oxygen.
There are countless tested and painless ways to die but anything that results in flesh being exposed or blood spilled it considered unethical, but we'll torture people and then say, "we didn't know that would happen," is fine. I don't see how these people can sleep at night.
[VIDEO]
To be fair, God has to be gay or female. No way the world would look and smell this nice if it was designed by a straight guy. Just go into any single straight guy's bathroom and take a deep breath.
It highlights an important aspect of religion IMO, which is that you can make up your own interpretation as you go.
If that's your sweeping perspective of every religion, sure. By the way, if you've been exposed to bathrooms used by mostly girls, it ain't good.
I’ve always liked the idea that death row inmates immediately become organ donors. Upon execution, they’re taken to a hospital, opened up, their organs are removed, and they’re just left to die on the table.
Their organs go to the best possible use (rather than be tainted with poison) and they’re executed, removing whatever threat they posed.
What an awful, disgusting video, by the way. I don’t often get to the point of ‘seething’, but it has me thus at its hypocrisy.
In 2014, with films, books and discussions and gay pride marches and more I still find it really, really, really exasperating that people can still come out with such ignorant statements.
The vast majority of humans identify as heterosexual (if they have thought about it), therefore every baby, toddler, nursery school kid, teenager, young adult, adult and elderly person is assumed to be heterosexual until proved otherwise.
Imagine this were pretty much reversed and the majority of humans identified as homosexual. It would be assumed that YOU would be attracted to the same sex when older, that you would date a nice young boy (assuming for the purpose that you are male) and that in time you would meet a man and fall in love and set up home. People continually ask you if you've met a "special" man yet? You evade the question. In your first week in a new job, a work colleague asks if you will be bringing your boyfriend to the company's social dance. You feel awkward. Given that you have just started, and knowing that the company has fired two workers who came out as heterosexual you say that you have no partner. It is a lie of course as you have lived with a woman for three years but only your very closest friends know. You haven't told the gay people you mix with yet because you don't know how they will take it.
On TV, in the cinema, in the classic novels (and the new ones) you read along with advertisements for computers, cars, coffee, carpets, garden equipment and much much more, you see happy relaxed and intimate gay couples. You long to see someone, anyone, in this endless parade who expresses romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, that gives you a sense that you are not alone and there there are others like you.
And then the head of Plum Inc, the largest tech company in the world, announces that he is heterosexual and that he is proud of who he is and that keeping his sexuality hidden from the world was damaging to his sense of ease, was implicitly saying that there was something wrong with him and that he wants to be honest now. He realises that customers in some countries may decide not to buy products from a company with a heterosexual CEO, but he thinks the benefits of honesty and being a role model for others is worth the risk.
As you read his statement you cheer - at last. You decide that next year you will finally tell your friends that you are going to be a father. You know that may be hard for some of them to hear, but you know, deep down, that to continually present yourself as someone else is no longer for you. You will just be yourself, no more, no less. You are finally going to "come out".
Maybe. Maybe not. But realise that, if you were paying attention, you would see that most heterosexuals make their private life public. Every. Single. Day.
Yet a 2 he execution is 'ethical'. I hope the family sues for the cruel and unusual punishment the prisoner received. Funny how even a federal judge shares my idea that a guillotine is best.
Outside of hai friends etc nobody KNEW anything. Just like for weeks before a keynote nobody really knows anything about the iPhone. We know the rumors but they can still end up false. I mean we 'knew' this year there was going to be an iPad Pro and a new apple TV but guess what, we 'knew' wrong.
The why he didn't say it sooner is Tims business. Perhaps he just got tired of the rumors and decided to just say it even though he doesn't owe the world such a statement. Perhaps someone close to him convinced him that by not saying it he was kind of a hypocrite. Perhaps something happened in his personal life like finding out some closeted gay kid in his home town tried to commit suicide cause he felt everyone would hate and scorn him for being gay. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. Nor should it matter that Tim is gay.
I agree entirely with this post. And yet, in today's celebrity-obsessed, paparazzi, gotcha media environment, a major public figure like Tim Cook is at risk if he tries to hide parts of his private life. Imagine the firestorm if some paparazzi caught a picture of Tim Cook walking down the street holding hands with another man, or kissing another man, or even something as simple as helping a man out of a car. Sure, I would love to think that it would be a non-event, but some guy looking for 15 minutes of fame is going to exploit it, we will have talking heads on the news and business channels talking about it, and most of all, we would have people coming out and saying, "Why is he hiding it? What abhorrent things is he doing with his gay playmates?
Tim Cook had full control by coming out as he did. He got out ahead of any scandal that could have developed or any rumors about exactly how he lives his life. For the people that say that it was a distraction, perhaps, but by doing it in this way, Tim Cook could control the message. It would have been much more detrimental to Apple as a corporation if he would have let the media paint a picture of his life that was totally false, and then have to defend the way that he lives.
That can be done immediately after a beheading. No poison, and no trauma to any vital organs.
Maybe. Maybe not. But realise that, if you were paying attention, you would see that most heterosexuals make their private life public. Every. Single. Day.
And if you looked around, you would see that the paparazzi media is looking for every bit of scandal they can find and/or manufacture. As much as Tim Cook wanted to keep his private life private (and that is exactly what he said in his interview), as the CEO of one of the biggest global companies (and especially as a bachelor), he has no choice - there is always someone looking to make a person of Cook's distinction private life public.
in Putin's Manly, Shirtless Russia, gays are confused with pedophiles as a kind of doctrinal matter
They might be coming to that conclusion by misinterpreting abuse stats. Girls are abused about 4x more than boys (so boys = 20% of abuse cases, it will vary by region) but if homosexuals are 2% of the population and half of those are women then 1% of the population is committing 20% of the child abuse (because 99% or so of reported abuse is by males), or in other words same-sex child abuse would be 25x more likely (relative to the population) than heterosexual. Sites like this take that angle:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
but the abusers don't necessarily identify as gay so it skews the stats. When there are campaigns to lower the age of consent, that won't help either but it's not lower than heterosexuals:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-ask-canada-to-lower-age-of-consent-for-anal-sex-national-post
Quote:
And bisexual people have no choice but be attracted to men and women.
And pedophiles have no choice but be attracted to children.
And people whose mothers don't want them have no choice but to be aborted.
And thieves have no choice but to steal.
And murderers have no choice but to kill people.
Got it.
Let's assume this is true, we can also conclude that all those examples after the first are harmful to others. Bisexuality and homosexuality aren't. That's where society draws the line between what we accept and what we reject. Incestuous relationships on their own aren't harmful but there's a strong chance of their children having genetic abnormalities so society rejects incestuous relationships.
What is the harm caused by homosexual or bisexual relationships? If there isn't any then they are acceptable.
You raise an interesting point in your observation of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I think that a lot of people regard most pedophiles as being homosexual, which therefore blackens homosexuality even more. How much of that is choice and how much is down to genes is open to debate, but historically, that is the uncomfortable truth.
Oh mang. This is approaching the "other side" of AI forums. Look what you done.
Kinsey is more than 60 years old, binaries in sexuality have been shown to be untrue for a very long time, maybe you need to get with the program...
Kinsey is more than 60 years old, binaries in sexuality have been shown to be untrue for a very long time, maybe you need to get with the program...
Just saying that the poster added more fuel to this thread. Calm down.
So because it’s old it’s correct?
Yes, obviously that's exactly what he meant. Now where did all my straw go?
If you were capable of reading the English language, you’d notice he gave no justification for his belief other than the amount of time the work had been made available, and he made this assertion three times. There is therefore only a single conclusion to be drawn from his statement. A strawman would be to claim any other reason for his belief.
Maybe don’t make assumptions about things, ‘kay?
So because it’s old it’s correct?
I know you have the Internet... And Wiki... So, not sure what your debating here?
From Wiki
"Today, many sexologists see the Kinsey scale as relevant to sexual orientation but not comprehensive enough to cover all sexual identity issues. They suggest that sexual identity involves at least three different spectra, sexual orientation being only one of them (two others being biological sex and gender identity).[4]"
So, it seems that Kinsey was too conservative in description of the variety of human sexuality. Not surprising since he started with no a priori knowledge.
If you google for actual current and past studies you get the same result.
BTW, Kinsey was purely a questionaire based research by the way. So, you'd have to state that people's own description of their own feelings and sexual experience is incorrect. Not something you can easily argue against even if you only took the result as merely qualitative; it is not.
@analogjack
Pretty sure being gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex. That's it. Sex does not have to be involved. Plenty of virgins out there that can attest to their sexual orientation.
Thanks for a straightforward answer. "...gay in 'real terms' means being attracted to the same sex..." exactly that is my point. If we were to then investigate this further, (which I'm not going to do here) then it's pretty easy to see that asking a few more questions based on your answer will show that 'gay' becomes a very nebulous concept, especially in relation to being not 'gay'. An example of of some of the pertinent questions I could ask would be ... 'if a 'gay' male were to get the horn upon seeing a comely female, would that make the person in reality 'not gay' or perhaps 'bisexual'. And of course we have to wonder what 'being attracted to' really means. For a male it may simply be being attracted to the way males deal with life and nothing at all to do with sex (as you have already said).
But you see the problem is that unless it is explicitly stated then the default idea that most people and certainly young people would have in mind when told that two males were in a gay relationship would be that they were in a sexual relationship, and I'm not going to go further on that. I guess you would agree that two males could call themselves 'gay' while still having no sexual relations with other males and only sexual relations with females. In other words, as I maintain, generally being 'gay' is a lifestyle choice, or even a political choice.
And it then follows that it does not seem right for so called 'gay' people to then foist their politics onto the institution of 'marriage' and thereby subvert the meaning of what marriage is and that predates religion.