Well the truth is finally out. Those who go to church, have a larger chance of becoming gay. Don't go to church, and you'll cut down your odds of turning gay dramatically.
As a rule, politicians are some of the most despicable people on this planet. Especially the ones that get close to the top or to the top. They give favors to those who help them financially. Ethics are thrown out the door. There are no saints in the Senate or the House of Commons in Canamerica.
First Foley gets caught having cybersex with a 16 year old boy. Then he states through his lawyer, that he was abused as a child, by a clergyman in Florida.
I am skeptical this happened. The Conservative Right lobby may have prompted Foley to say this. Conservative politicians and the Religious Right lobby are equally slimey when it comes to lying about science and especially about taking a stance that homosexuality is a sickness, and something that isn't predisposed by birth.
Now, even if it did happen, here is a typical politician who is supposed to be a represantive of the people. Aren't politicians supposed to protect the people when they can? Isn't this why they are elected? If the allegations are true, Foley allowed a pedophile clergyman to keep on keeping on: 'Mary Ross Agosta, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, said Foley never filed a report of abuse, but she encouraged him to do so.'
Mary, it is a little late. How many more boys has this clergyman "turned gay" since 1969?
Fact: there is a Jewish look. There is also a gay look. There is a lesbian look too. Although there are many exceptions. Foley looks gay. Did turning gay make him look gay, or was he born with the gay look and did he turned gay coincidentally?
So Foley, which is it? Were you born gay, or did your church going turn you gay?
Foley was born gay, the preist helped him become a pedophile.(or whatever the word is for those who are attracted to post pubescent children) Many that are sexually abused in this way become abusers themselves.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless this sack of dung has disgraced himself and is now grasping at anything to get his ass out of the fire.
I hope he burns.
If our politicans have any brains whatsoever they will out the other molesters and perverts we have in our congress.
Geez, if going to church makes you gay I don't know how I'm not married to Martina Navritilova by now considering the time I spent in church growing up. Must just be Catholics. I was a Baptist...you know, the only ones going to "heaven"?
ReplyDeleteSomehow religion always seems to work its way into a politicians excuse or repentance when they are caught doing something that they shouldn’t be doing. Their God always will forgive them and a great majority of the public usually bites into it, hook, line and sinker.
ReplyDeleteI can't help wondering: Is it more embarrassing for a Republican to admit that he is gay or for someone who is gay to admit that he is a Republican?
Hammer and Rev, I am looking at the comments that came out from the lawyer as appeasing the Christian Right lobby.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong but I don't think the "admission" was more to excuse his homosexuality and not so much his pedophelia.
Lisa, until Martina is in your bed, you won't know for sure. And besides, I said it increases your chances.
Atheologist: that is like which came first, the chicken or the egg. We know of course it is the chicken, but it wasn't a chicken, just a one celled animal.
I'm with you, BEAJ, when you say that you are skeptical about the abuse. He wouldn't disclose the name, and is it just me, or should a 13-15 year old boy who has just told someone he has been raped not have to file a "complaint". It this kid approached a spokesperson for the Archdiocese, I would think she would see to the oral complaint, rather than asking him to file a written one.
ReplyDeleteFoley is one sick guy if you ask me. I have no problem with gayness, but I'm not sure being gay is the issue here, I think Foley is a flat out pedophile.
By the way, does my picture look gay?
A flamingo is flaming with an o at the end of it.
ReplyDeleteYep, I agree with those who find this "I was abused by a priest" revelation to be highly suspect. Not that it's unusual for priests to molest boys or anything, but I think this turd Foley is just latching onto a well-known phenomenon to try to gain sympathy for the fact that he's a scumbag pedophile. I have zero sympathy for him -- even if his claim turns out to be true, it would make me despise him even more, because someone who had been molested by an authority figure as a teen should fucking well know better than to become an authority figure who molests teens. What a douchebag.
ReplyDeleteI believe the age of consent is 16 in the District of Columbia. Free love is groovy, right Democrats?
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing Democrats are gay-bashing for political gain. Even more ironic is how they act like having a lurid IM chat with an intern is wrong, while Clinton can grope people and have oral sex on the job without calls for resignation. (And Foley *did* resign, btw.)
Jason, it is a bit ambiguous. The age of consent is 16 but the Adam Walsh law is a federal one protecting minors under the age of 18. See here.
ReplyDeleteAnd what is amazing about politicians being unethical or hypocritical. That is what they do best. Dems, Repubs, whatever.....doesn't matter, it is the nature of the species.
Using "abused by a priest" these days is like using a trump card. Not that I'm trying to protect priests, but his statement simply shows that he has a slick lawyer.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that politicians are liars. But what came first, the liar or the politician?
ReplyDeletePedophilia isn't the right word. Pedophilia requires a pre-pubescent object, which a 16 year old isn't. The term we're looking for here is Pederasty (google away). In North American culture it's most often a fetishistic form of homosexuality (my opinion). If Mr. Foley was molested as a child, certainly this could have created the foundation for his adult fetish. Often fetishes are reversals of previous abusives suffered by the fetishist.
ReplyDeleteThat said; his relationship with the page is certainly an abuse of power, and a gross excercise in hypocracy.
I won't comment about the issue itself, since I know it will be talked to death in the next few weeks, but I will say that Foley looks oddly like a butch groomed Stuart Smalley.
ReplyDeleteWouldn’t life be a lot more organized if there were no such thing as homosexuality? You would kind of want to think that your sons would be safe from this sort of predation. In a world where gayness is perfectly normal all men should be discriminated against just to be on the safe side. All male priests, scout leaders, teachers and male students should be considered gay and unsafe to be left alone with your male children. They have always been unsafe to leave alone with your female children. All these sort of activities should be overseen by nuns who have sworn an oath of chastity. You may think I am joking but I am not. Rampant homosexuality is not something to be desired. In the past we relied on people having “normal’ sexual preferences and so separated the sexes for educational purposes. Men have powerful sex drives that override all common sense. When you have man loving man you have double the formula of explosive sex drive. The old Ying and Yang is all unbalanced. All you guys think back to when you were teenagers. Imagine a world where homosexuality is absolutely normal and sexual experimentation is encouraged. Nothing to worry about, no one is going to get pregnant – and any way you are a sick, repressed individual if you think homosexuality is wrong. Imagine sending your children to a boarding school in that sort of environment.
ReplyDeleteThankfully the fairly common innate human disgust at homosexual practices will offer some sort of self-protection for the young. However figures of authority and trust and peer pressure can override natural tendencies.
But it looks like the world is still in some sort of equilibrium despite the pressure to unbalance it. A politician is still toast if he is caught in a compromising position with a dead girl or a live boy.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think homosexuality is evil I just think it is “tragically ludicrous”. It has its place and that is mostly being the butt of jokes. A lot of comedians have made a living from being tragically ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteConsider the following statement:
maketh not me laugh with thine mincery, thoust prancing bugger-wife - Chaucer
Actually not Chaucer but funny, no?
Foley has now become tragically ludicrous - it warms my heart, things are not as bad as I thought.
When you have man loving man you have double the formula of explosive sex drive.
ReplyDelete******************
No you don't. Since homosexual men only make up 5% of the population, you only have a 5% increased risk that someone will rape or commit unethical acts.
Normally I agree with you AA, but I have read that indecent actual acts of homosexual pedophelia are percentage wise in line with the percentage of homosexuals in the population.
In defense of this asshole Foley, the comments made by the page seem to indicate the page was gay or pretending to be. 16 is the age of consent in DC, and had Foley had IM conversations with a 16 year old girl, I'm sure you wouldn't be equally disgusted.
AA, you think it is ludicrous for you. Just like men don't do it for me either.
ReplyDeleteAgain, gays and lesbians can't help being attracted to the same sex. So for them it is not ludicrous.
Homosexuals are a bit like the retarded, the disabled and the overly religious - they can't help it. I predict we wont be able to make fun of gay people either in the future.
ReplyDeleteI consider the homosexual to be somewhat disabled and so would not wish it on my children. Basically I am a traditionalist. I believe that traditions were set in place for a reason. The fables of old are ageless metaphors that the ancients have relayed to us as a warning because they have been there and done that and saw the consequences. Sodom was a warning against rampant sexuality endorsed by the authorities, the Tower of Babel a warning against multi-culturalism etc.
As for the explosive sexuality of some gays I remember reading about the first AIDS sufferers and how they had like a thousand sexual partners. There does seem to be something less constraining about male on male sexuality.
Would it be impolite for me to tell angloamerican to kindly go fuck himself? He doesn't know jack shit about homosexuality, Gays, or AIDS. If he does have children, they're in serious risk from being raised by an idiot.
ReplyDeleteCyber sex with a 16-year-old is not pedophilia folks. What Foley did was reprehensible for two reasons: one, it was against the law. Two, he used his status of being a Congressman in an attempt to exploit vulnerable young men for whom he should have had a greater sense of responsibility. It is not pedophilia though, just illegal. Sixteen-year-olds are young men, not older boys. You need to be more accurate when you're assigning perversions.
The reason this story has legs is not because of a closeted homosexual having cyber sex with Congressional pages, it's because the leadership of the Republican Party, the Morals and Values Party, could give a shit when it comes to policing their own. They're all talk.
These bumpkins are the same ones who have gotten us into a war that we cannot win, have nearly bankrupted our government, and cheated and stolen more than all previous administrations combined, and that says a lot.
In another few weeks we Americans will be given one more chance to take our government back from these thugs.
Vote early and vote often.
Speaking of voting, I can understand why what Foley did is considered illegal. Legal voting age in the US is 18. 16 and 17 year olds would make the perfect victims. They have no vote.
ReplyDeleteAngloAmerican, you sound like you're insane- psychologists all over the nation laugh at your pathologizing of homosexuality. Can you hear them groaning at your comments? Read more, please.
ReplyDelete"Wouldn’t life be a lot more organized if there were no such thing as homosexuality?"
This should read, "Wouldn’t life be a lot more organized if there were no such thing as sexuality?"
Imagine how wonderfully uncomplicated the world would be if humans reproduced asexually.
So I have a different opinion and I am accused of being an idiot and insane....and rude words too. Struck a nerve I suspect. Poofters, he mutters under his breath.
ReplyDeleteLook, homosexualty may be natural but then so are rabbits who eat their own droppings for breakfast and insects who eat their mates and lions who kill their cubs so I don't buy that line of reasoning.
I enjoyed Brokeback Mountain - watched it twice. Brokeback Mountain was a tragedy because homosexuality ruined those guys lives. The 'hero' at the end was so sad living alone in a trailer pining for his friend - a victim of his uncontrollable desires although I did feel for him and his plight. Far better to have a loving wife and children and real mates he could really go fishing with. It was a modern morality tale. Actually I believe most gays don't like the movie because of this.
Anyway I'm fighting against the majority opinion here. Come on you readers who want to fight on my side. I need your support against this tide of girlie-men. Calling all real men and women, be honest and say what you really feel.
I've never had sex with a man or wanted to and so I consdier myself hetrosexual. Possibly even a "real man" as angloamerican calls it, although I'm probably disqualified from that because I have never caught a fish, never been to a football game or watched one on TV, and I'm not especially keen on beer. So I'd like to come out in support of Angloamerican. Sadly however, I can't because I totally disagree with him.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen broke back mountain so I'll just have to draw my opinion from the many gay men and women I have known in real life. There is absolutely no difference between two men falling in love and a man and a woman falling in love. The emotions are as intense and significant and I have absolutely no doubt that they take the same joy, pleasure, comfort and heartbreak from the twists and turns of their partnership as do straight couples. Last night I spent several hours talking with a gay friend about his relationship with a guy he has lived with for the past four years. He wanted to talk because they had been arguing. It was exactly the same as talking about a straight relationship. The same ups and downs. The same desires and issues. The same hopes and fears. I suspect Angloamerican hasn't really got to know many gay men. It's not all wizard of oz and kylie. It's just people feeling close and attached. Absolutely no difference from and absolutely as valid as straight relationships and they should be afforded exactly the same legal rights.
I love football (just the NFL, not the CFL or college), but too I've never caught a fish and the closest thing I've had to having a same sex relationship was dating a girl who was 6 foot tall, half an inch taller than me.
ReplyDeleteI admit, in Jr. high school I used to punch this one effeminate in the arm all the time because he was soooooo gay. It was out of ignorarance though. I admit it. I'm over it.
I've come to the conclusion that homosexuality exists. Live with it. By numbers it is almost as natural as lefthandedness. I accept it. Gays do not phase me anymore.
AA, how many people have been ruined because of same sex relationships? Having affairs for example. Marrying a bitch for life for example. Alcoholism for example.
Until gays start raping heterosexuals on the streets or try to chop my head off or convert me, I'm not bothered by them.
And don't tell me that women on women sex scenes in movies hasn't given you some happy feelings.....unless of course you are not a real man.
Anglo, you can call me a girlie man if you want, but the big wad of tabbacy in my lip disagrees.
ReplyDelete"Until gays start raping heterosexuals on the streets or try to chop my head off or convert me, I'm not bothered by them."
LOL- BEAJ, you slay me.
I will admit to a bit of winding you guys up here, sorry. I have known two gay guys in my life and both were the 'in your face' variety who constantly talked about their sex lives. One seemed to have a new partner every week. Both died of AIDS within a year of each other back in the eighties. I believe they died of AZT poisoning because both were dead within a year of diagnosis and I have never seen that since but that’s a whole other story.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify my position a little. I like gay people. I would even be a bit flattered if one fancied me. But I do think they need a good hug and a dose of sympathy because homosexuality is a tragic waste of manhood and lesbianism a tragic waste of womanhood. It’s not something to be celebrated with a ‘good for you’ and a high five. I’m not denying that the feelings they have for each other are real. Same goes for ‘trannies’. Surely being a woman trapped in a man’s body is a tragedy right? It’s also a bit amusing like really fat people who are also tragic.
I’m sure that a lot of gay people get a kick out of being a bit peculiar. Do they really want it to be seen as perfectly normal?
AA, homosexuality will never be accepted as normal. We will never be able to say "the couple across the street" without putting "gay" in front of couple.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm, let's see if we can do a little reworking of AA's words. Let's see how it works:
ReplyDeleteAbout 12% of Americans are Black. There is a percentage of other Americans who will never accept them as perfect, fellow citizens. Statistically, they are more likely -- at birth -- to die of a gunshot wound, to be undereducated, to be jailed, to get AIDs, to develope heart disease, diabetes or colon cancer. They are certainly going to, on average, earn less than almost any other group of Americans.
They are born Black. Can't help it. Surely, as AA sees it, it's "ludicrous" to be Black. It's just a "waste" of manhood or womanhood. Afterall, if one of these "handicapped" fellas or ladies procreates, the offspring will just be another Black kid, with all the disadvantages.
* * *
One last point. I'm not trying to shout anyone down or get PC here. I'm a vehemently anti-PC married heterosexual. In fact, I love the fact that BEAJ runs a forum where someone can speak the way AA does, and still receive generally reasoned discourse in opposition. Free speech is a wonderful thing, as are provocative opinions.
That said . . . AA has basically spent an entire afternoon expressing his very impassioned views on homosexuals. Therefore, I'd ask him the same thing I ask to those who "prove" that Jews hold power disproportionate to their numbers, or "prove" that sub-Saharan Africans have lower IQs than Europeans, or "prove" that women are less able in math than men, etc.
I'll ask: Ok, so let's that what you insist is true. Why's it so important to you? What are you gonna do about it? What does it mean?
At that point the "debate" usually ends, or degenerates into name calling. Let's hope it's the former.
I'd like to think about that for a bit Mike.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to put out there for debate is the notion that the homosexual is less than an 'ideal' human. The same as the overly obese, overly skinny, crippled, diseased, criminal and retarded individuals.
Imagine if you have been tasked with choosing people for an escape space ship to leave a dying Earth for new a new planet but seats are highly limited. Would you choose gay people over straight people who had the same mental and physical attributes? I think not. Therefore AA comes to the conclusion that homosexual people are less than ideal - not that there's anything wrong with that. I actually wouldn't choose myself - most of you would be pleased to hear.
However what religion is all about and I think the human is intrinsincly tied up with is some sort of striving toward the ideal. We all fall short and the mythical Christ and Buddha made it. We need to maintain our striving for the ideal even though we have no hope of reaching it. It is easier or some than others. Without this striving it is Sodom and Gommorah all over again.
AA, the only reason not to take gays on the trip to the new planet would be if procreation was an issue, and the gay dudes wouldn't offer up their seeds.
ReplyDeleteI think you would be looking for those who come from families with the longest life spans and are not prone to genetic diseases.
I would imagine a trip like that would require lots of frozen sperm and embryos.
You could put things in a different way. In preferential order if you were to father a child, what traits would be more repulsive for that kid to have?:
Dwarfism, obesity, homosexuality, drug dependent, mildly retarded, Downs, deaf, prone to early heart disease, Crohn's, arthritis, blind, missing a limb, a child where the paternity is in doubt. I'll stop there.
Dwarves might be good as you could pack more in. I remember reading about the possibility of genetically engineering humans for space travel and planet colonization and small was better. Humans are rather too large and large animals become extinct easier. Yet natural dwarves are recessive mutants or something so they're out.
ReplyDeleteAs for the list above if given a choice for having to choose one trait that a son must have in descending order of preference it would be:
homosexuality - He's not perfect but he keeps his room tidy and he's funny.
Doubtful paternity- yet an ideal specimen.
Crohn's -seems common.
missing a limb - still got 3.
drug dependent - acid head or diabetic?
obesity - gigantic?
prone to early heart disease- How early?
arthritis.
blind - easier than deaf.
deaf- I think my kids are!
mildly retarded.
Downs.
It's an interesting quiz.
AA-
ReplyDeleteHilarious post in response to BEAJ's quiz. LOL. My favorites:
Dwarves might be good as you could pack more in.
homosexuality - He's not perfect but he keeps his room tidy and he's funny.
But . . . getting back to your reply to my queries.
What I would like to put out there for debate is the notion that the homosexual is less than an 'ideal' human.
Again, I wonder why this matters to you so much. You allude to the ideals of Buddha and Jesus: a fat ascetic who gave up the life of luxury & hedonism to which he was born; and a gay mama's boy with a death wish. Don't think he was gay? Why didn't he shack up with Mary Magdeline?
They're bad examples -- far from "ideal." And I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove.
Imagine if you have been tasked with choosing people for an escape space ship to leave a dying Earth for new a new planet but seats are highly limited.
Once again. Why this fascination with Social Darwinism? And why lump homosexuals -- who are statistically & steroetypically good looking, well-educated, high earners -- in with the miscreants. If we have a scenario that sees us launched into space for all eternity, why not posit test tubes, petri dishes, gay porn mags, and artificial insemination, if you get my drift.
Therefore AA comes to the conclusion that homosexual people are less than ideal - not that there's anything wrong with that.
Mike comes to the conclusion that after a long run of brutal (and admirable honesty), AA is dissembling. You spend an afternoon preaching about "an ideal," invoking no less than Jesus & Buddha, yet you say there's nothing wrong with falling short of it? Hmmmm.
Your ideas, AA, are well-presented, and I respect the way you come at this so rationally. But I still have a hard time with any theory that concludes that one type of person is "better" than another.
It's always based on subjectivity (i.e., what variables feed the chosen metric to determine "good" or "success"), and it's always in the service of a far from noble emotional stance.
AA-
ReplyDeleteIf the "not that there's anything wrong with that" was a Seinfeld riff -- and nothing more than a Seinfeld riff, then I get you on that point.
But something tells me that like many jokes, there's some true opinion beneath the jocularity.
anglo--
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your viewpoint. Homsexuality in a rational society would be considered a mental disorder. One may disagree with this, but it should be an empirical matter that can't be overruled a priori by feelings and likes.
From an evolutionary perspective, there is no internal explanation why homosexuals should exist, given homosexuals don't reproduce. This suggests that homosexuality is created by external factors.
That one can't discuss these matters without being called a racist, a homophobe, and possibly being called a homo yourself says a lot about the current intellectual environment in the United States. If one doesn't support the far neo-com agenda, then people assume you must be a fundie nutcase that hates gays. That's not always the case, though unfortunately more often than not it is.
Anyway, thanks for the posts.
Jason, as covered, homosexuality is very common in the animal kingdom. So it is most likely nature as well as nurture and possibly one or the other in certain cases. Hermaphrodites are also born. And there have been numerous studies that testosterone levels a fetus receives can contribute to homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals do reproduce in cultures that murder homosexuals. They even reproduce in any culture or civilization that is not open to them (which has been the case up until very recently in most of the West). Many gay actors in the 50's fathered children. Many lesbians have biological children too.
jason:
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing Democrats are gay-bashing for political gain. Even more ironic is how they act like having a lurid IM chat with an intern is wrong, while Clinton can grope people and have oral sex on the job without calls for resignation. (And Foley *did* resign, btw.)
-GROAN- & Optimus Prime chips in w/more rhetorical crap.
The problem here, if you hadn't noticed, is that the REPUBLICANS are supposed to be the 'family values' party.
http://biblioblography.blogspot.com/2006/10/page-of-consent-of-foley-folly-and.html
From an evolutionary perspective, there is no internal explanation why homosexuals should exist, given homosexuals don't reproduce. This suggests that homosexuality is created by external factors.
BEAJ pretty much deflowered your ridiculously uninformed comment.
That one can't discuss these matters without being called a racist, a homophobe, and possibly being called a homo yourself says a lot about the current intellectual environment in the United States. If one doesn't support the far neo-com agenda, then people assume you must be a fundie nutcase that hates gays. That's not always the case, though unfortunately more often than not it is.
That sounds like an invitation. What are you, some kind of masochist?
The only thing you've been right about thus far, is the age of consent in DC. It is 16.
AA:
What I would like to put out there for debate is the notion that the homosexual is less than an 'ideal' human. The same as the overly obese, overly skinny, crippled, diseased, criminal and retarded individuals.
Oh, my, that sounds so very...Nietzschean.
Your alternate monicker wouldn't be Hugo Drax, would it?
For the record, I think you & jason are both a coupla dipwads. You should both invest in some research before either of you open your traps.
Because, to quote Ellison: "No one's entitled to an opinion. People are entitled to an INFORMED opinion."
ka--
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about innocuous IM messages between consenting gays. This is a sex scandal without sex, but note-- Mark Foley resigned. I cannot say the same for William Jefferson Clinton. Democrats reelect sex offenders to the House of Representatives like Mel Reynolds here in Chicago; it took a prison sentence to remove him from office. Now Reynolds has a nice job with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.
What is most striking about the Foley scandal is how many Democrats describe him as a creepy pervert. Democrats have been preaching about how soft and gentle and tolerant they are of all alternative lifestyles, but when a gay Congressman gets caught in a sexed-up conversation with a gay 18 year old, they consider homosexuality pedophilia.
I'm really amused by this.
You say Nietzschean like it is a bad thing Ka. Hugo Drax was a fictional Nazi and the Nazis were a long way from the philosophy that Nietzsche espoused. Nietzsche is still a well-respected modern philosopher so I wonder who is the ill informed (or is that dipwad?) here. Anyway you pretty much called me a Nazi so you lose.
ReplyDeleteJason
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming into the debate - I was afraid my position was going to be overun. Be prepared for some abuse as this is a very emotional issue. Good points in that last comment. Foley should be applauded by Democrats for be so, uh, modern.
AA and Jason, I already mentioned in my original post that politicians are pretty much all hypocritical slime balls.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there isn't much of a difference between the Dem's and the Repubs. As far as Clinton goes, if his BJ episode was impeachable, so too was Bush for trying to pass the Ports Deal. I think the latter was way worse actually.
I think that Clinton's actions were worse becuase he was so abusive of his position. Hundreds of thousands of people died because he had a blow job in the oval office. Democrats might have won if he didn't repulse so many voters and Iraq probably wouldn't have been invaded.
ReplyDeleteMike-
ReplyDeleteThanks for discussing this in a civilized way. I had to look up dissembling in the dictionary by the way – I’m thinking of changing my moniker to “Dessembler”. I like to think that I am open to changing my mind about things and softening my stance when faced with good arguments.
So I will address this question: Why's it so important to you? What are you gonna do about it? What does it mean?
Firstly this thread is discussing homosexual behaviour and attitudes so it is important, as it is the topic. I thought Mad Zionist got roughly treated in previous discussions so I thought it would be interesting to rush in to his defence as a representative of the religious atheist militant wing.
Secondly, several times in my life I have been accused of being a ‘homo’. When I was 12 I revealed to a friend that I had been mildly abused by an older boy when I was younger and he, of course, told everyone in the school. From then on I was known as the ‘homo’. For a boy who was very much a boy, into hunting and fishing and war and stuff this was a bit harsh. Later as a teenager I had a very close friend and we spent a lot of time together talking, hiking, fishing and talking about girls. We used to attend church youth camps and things and one day I heard a girl say, “here come the homo’s”. For a boy who was very interested in getting a girlfriend this was a bit harsh. So maybe it’s personal. But, hey, “what does not kill me makes me stronger”.
I have a problem with homosexuality because young men often have great difficulty getting even to first base in heterosexual relationships and the easiest sexual activity can sometimes be got through other boys. If homosexuality is encouraged by society I think a lot of boys will be damaged and preyed upon because they are super vulnerable at a time of heightened sexuality and regular rejection.
Thirdly, I believe that the repulsive feelings heterosexuals have for homosexuality is instinctive. Deep down the crocodilian core of the brain knows it is the wrong path to maximum fertility and is ‘normally’ repelled by it. When I think about cuddling another man I just feel yeeeh. Yet I could, before I married, do all sorts of dirty stuff with a comely young lady even if she was a complete stranger. I know not everyone feels this way and why should they? Well the reason is because humans, being rational beings, understand the underlying reason for sexual behaviour is reproduction – the crocodile has always known this instinctively. Healthy individuals are tricked by chemical processes in the body to react to stimuli in order to engage in reproductive behaviour – even your Granny knows this is a healthy trait. So when a man and women connect and make a family it is indeed an occasion for celebration.
Logically on the face of it humans don’t need to be quite so reproductive now as we have been so successful. Perhaps it is time to throw out all the old conventions. Except that on the horizon a vast army of darkness is assembling that believes homosexuality and a lot of other stuff is a grave sin. Islam’s warriors will attack us with the full effect of an overriding moral force. I’m not sure that our army of atheists, trannies, gays and dykes are up to this challenge.
AA:
ReplyDeleteYou say Nietzschean like it is a bad thing Ka. Hugo Drax was a fictional Nazi and the Nazis were a long way from the philosophy that Nietzsche espoused. Nietzsche is still a well-respected modern philosopher so I wonder who is the ill informed (or is that dipwad?) here. Anyway you pretty much called me a Nazi so you lose.
You may want to go look up Godwin's law. The invoker loses as well.
When you said:
What I would like to put out there for debate is the notion that the homosexual is less than an 'ideal' human.
That's exactly who came to mind.
& being Nietschean isn't necessarily a bad thing. AH abused the hell out of it.
The reason I said that, is that both of you are talking about homosexuality as if it were a genetic disorder. As if evolution works in a straight line, & we are the pinnacle (i.e., final result) of some abstract concept that thinks the same way we do. That's reification.
Apologies if off.
Jason:
What is most striking about the Foley scandal is how many Democrats describe him as a creepy pervert. Democrats have been preaching about how soft and gentle and tolerant they are of all alternative lifestyles, but when a gay Congressman gets caught in a sexed-up conversation with a gay 18 year old, they consider homosexuality pedophilia.
Well, as I understood it, the boy was 16. Consensual adult in that state, as you pointed out. Did any of the IMS or emails go across state lines?
& yes, there are some double-standards. However, if I (as a middle-aged man) were to date someone 1/2 my age, the phrase 'short eyes' would be on everyone's lips, regardless of partisanship. We live in a kiddie culture - old people are dross.
Fact is, gossip is the ideology of the day. An accusation is as good as a conviction in our culture. That's a load of crap, IMHO, but that's the way it is.
Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants, but I think the millions of $ squandered by Starr would've been better spent on better things. He made a major error, but it was of a personal nature. Hardly comparable to old Shrub-a-roo.
It's hard (no pun intended) not to think of Foley as an old lecher. Cultural thing, I guess.
Nice save there Ka. OK we both lose or is that a draw on that point?
ReplyDeleteI think you are misinterpreting my ”less than ideal” statement. I mean it in the pure sense. For example you could say when looking at a computer that you have just repaired and smoke is coming out of it that the fix was “less than ideal” or “pretty average” – this is not how I mean it. More like parents discussing the behaviour of their son and describing it as “less than ideal”.
AA:
ReplyDeleteFirstly this thread is discussing homosexual behaviour and attitudes so it is important, as it is the topic. I thought Mad Zionist got roughly treated in previous discussions so I thought it would be interesting to rush in to his defence as a representative of the religious atheist militant wing.
He got roughly treated because he brought little to the discussion other than testesterone chest-pounding.
Secondly, several times in my life I have been accused of being a ‘homo’. When I was 12 I revealed to a friend that I had been mildly abused by an older boy when I was younger and he, of course, told everyone in the school. From then on I was known as the ‘homo’. For a boy who was very much a boy, into hunting and fishing and war and stuff this was a bit harsh. Later as a teenager I had a very close friend and we spent a lot of time together talking, hiking, fishing and talking about girls. We used to attend church youth camps and things and one day I heard a girl say, “here come the homo’s”. For a boy who was very interested in getting a girlfriend this was a bit harsh. So maybe it’s personal. But, hey, “what does not kill me makes me stronger”.
So have I. For different reasons. Mostly due to being ‘the odd man out’.
I have a problem with homosexuality because young men often have great difficulty getting even to first base in heterosexual relationships and the easiest sexual activity can sometimes be got through other boys. If homosexuality is encouraged by society I think a lot of boys will be damaged and preyed upon because they are super vulnerable at a time of heightened sexuality and regular rejection.
This is just inherent to any predator, regardless of sexuality. Again, worship of innocence & kids. I live in the S.F Bay area, & from what I’ve garnered, most gays out here won’t even go near someone under the age of 21.
Thirdly, I believe that the repulsive feelings heterosexuals have for homosexuality is instinctive. Deep down the crocodilian core of the brain knows it is the wrong path to maximum fertility and is ‘normally’ repelled by it. When I think about cuddling another man I just feel yeeeh. Yet I could, before I married, do all sorts of dirty stuff with a comely young lady even if she was a complete stranger. I know not everyone feels this way and why should they? Well the reason is because humans, being rational beings, understand the underlying reason for sexual behaviour is reproduction – the crocodile has always known this instinctively. Healthy individuals are tricked by chemical processes in the body to react to stimuli in order to engage in reproductive behaviour – even your Granny knows this is a healthy trait. So when a man and women connect and make a family it is indeed an occasion for celebration.
See, you’ve got so much of this wrong.
1st off, it’s the REPTILIAN hindbrain. It’s the part of the human brain that avoids pain and seeks pleasure, what you’re describing is a function of the neo-mammalian brain. I think Jason’s got it backwards: our aversion to a completely natural behavior is a learned reflex. There’s been 450 species catalogues as indulging in homosexual behavior: from the birds to the bees, even to the bonobos chimpanzees (all respect to Tony Bennet notwithstanding). Prior to the Judeo-xtian ethic being imposed on civilization, same-sex unions were recognized, from the Americas thru Europe, even in Asia. Transgeneration was never an issue until that, either. I can prove that, if you like: but go look it up, don’t take my word for it.
This is what I mean by ill-informed. NOBODY CARED, until the xtians came along, & demanded their ‘normative behavior’.
Evolution doesn’t ‘think’: “Hey, this is how it should be.” Evolution just is.
Sure, sex is primarily about reproduction. But again, this isn’t a linear progression, nor is it an exclusive one.
& for the record, I don't think most cavemen gave a rat's fart in a whirlwind: when every moment is a battle for survival, you take your pleasures where you can. Likelihood is, when someone bent over, the chance was taken.
Crude, I grant you, but to the point.
AA:
ReplyDeleteNice save there Ka. OK we both lose or is that a draw on that point?
Hey, it was an honest opinion. We can call it a draw: my ego's pretty sturdy.
I think you are misinterpreting my ”less than ideal” statement. I mean it in the pure sense.
'Pure'? Name anything that is.
For example you could say when looking at a computer that you have just repaired and smoke is coming out of it that the fix was “less than ideal” or “pretty average” – this is not how I mean it. More like parents discussing the behaviour of their son and describing it as “less than ideal”.
It's a fair analogy, but we're talking about natural organisms, not machines.
It's only 'less than ideal' in a cultural sense, way I see it.
For the record (again) - I used to think the same way you do. That is, until I started researching the subject.
Boy, was I wrong.
Oops - meant 'catalogued' not 'catalogues'. My bad.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is largely with teenage boys preying on pre-teens. The teenagers may not be real homosexuals but they can easily indulge in homosexual behaviour.
ReplyDeleteBy pure I mean in a conceptual way. Like God is pure.
Crocodilian/reptilian – you know what I mean! Anyay, 21st century humans have evolved the memes way beyond the caveman. We have insight, knowledge, all that good stuff. Just because a caveman will give you a good buggering don’t make it right.
And what about my last point about the army of darkness
AA:
ReplyDeleteMy concern is largely with teenage boys preying on pre-teens. The teenagers may not be real homosexuals but they can easily indulge in homosexual behaviour.
Hey, that's up to the parents to deal with. We can't just deep-six a behavior because there might be some fall-out.
Wait: are you using the old 'think of the children' routine?
By pure I mean in a conceptual way. Like God is pure.
Who? Oh, that non-existent being? Feh. I go w/, if it ain't w/in the purview of my 5 senses, it's a fantasy.
Crocodilian/reptilian – you know what I mean! Anyay, 21st century humans have evolved the memes way beyond the caveman. We have insight, knowledge, all that good stuff. Just because a caveman will give you a good buggering don’t make it right.
I was using evolution to illustrate my point. Right? By whose standards?
Here's another little caveat: try the old Asian pearls-on-a-string trick. I hear it's explosive. If evolution pre-empts anything anal, why does that little diddly do so much? ;)
Anyways, my point stands: it's not unnatural. The aversion is a learned reflex.
And what about my last point about the army of darkness
Oooohhh, I see. You're laboring under the misperception that being gay & effeminate weakens the individual.
Again, incorrect.
The Athenian army, for instance, was composed of homosexual soldiers. Who's gonna fight harder - you're slicing up someone's lover.
Also, the katoey (ladyboys) of Siam are, as I understand it, prone to violence.
People are people, gay or straight. Just because someone's gay, doesn't mean they won't fight for their own survival, like a cornered raccoon.
You're 'army of darkness' is another topic altogether.
The ideal human doesn't exist except as a concept. God too is a concept. The ideal human concept is not homosexual. I think you understand what I mean.
ReplyDeleteI also think you are deliberatly not thinking too deeply about the normal sexual behaviour of teenage boys and the consequences of sanctioning it.
Glad to here that our army of peculiar people will be up to the task. History has shown that this has not been the case before however I think we can muster enough strength to push the red button.
Also think back to my spaceship. Imagine if we only choose homosexuals of both sexes. What a gay, bitchin' time that will be on the trip to Andromeda.
I do believe the Romans wiped the clocks of those effeminate Greeks. Indeed the early Romans thought the Greeks were a lot of gay boys .Unfortunately the Romans later adopted dubious Greek attitudes and their strength was sapped. Say hello to the Huns and Visigoths boys.
ReplyDeleteAA:
ReplyDeleteThe ideal human doesn't exist except as a concept. God too is a concept. The ideal human concept is not homosexual. I think you understand what I mean.
I think I do. I think that's wrong. There really isn't an 'ideal human concept'. It actually varies from culture to culture.
I also think you are deliberatly not thinking too deeply about the normal sexual behaviour of teenage boys and the consequences of sanctioning it.
'Monkey see, monkey do'? Don't really agree w/that either. Fact is, there's a large gay population DESPITE the 'norm'. Can you say 'slippery slope'? Of course, not a child psychologist. There's some mimicry, but from your prior statements, I'd say you infer there's a 'natural aversion' anyways, right?
Glad to here that our army of peculiar people will be up to the task. History has shown that this has not been the case before however I think we can muster enough strength to push the red button.
??? Such as? Let's hope against hope, no red button will be necessary.
Also think back to my spaceship. Imagine if we only choose homosexuals of both sexes. What a gay, bitchin' time that will be on the trip to Andromeda.
Depends on whether or not the ship is FTL, or requires the passengers to be in stasis.
Don't forget your tinfoil hat there. ;)
Anyways, do the research. Nature is too wide & varied to be pigeonholed w/'either/or' hypothoses.
AA:
ReplyDeleteI do believe the Romans wiped the clocks of those effeminate Greeks.
Errr, ummm, I said Athenian. The Spartans weren't pederasts, & their soldiery trained in a manner that would make a Ranger go pale. I believe the Macedonians used the concept. Alexander took over most of the known world, he was bi. & Achilles? Contrary to the movie, that wasn't his cousin - that was his lover (he was bi, too).
Indeed the early Romans thought the Greeks were a lot of gay boys .
Ummm...do I really need to correct all your historical errors too? Or are you unaware that the Romans adopted piles of customs as well as mythology?
Unfortunately the Romans later adopted dubious Greek attitudes and their strength was sapped. Say hello to the Huns and Visigoths boys.
Aye caramba! Do you ever read a book?
The Romans fell because xtianity took over, & diverted resources necessary to maintain the military.
Homosexuality toppled the Roman Empire?!?!?!? You are yanking my chain, right?
AA:
ReplyDeleteOops. Sorry. Incorrect statement:
Or are you unaware that the Romans adopted piles of customs as well as mythology?
Obviously you were.
Go look up Theodosious. The emperor who issued the edict that xtianity was the official religion, & banned all others.
The early Romans did too think the Greeks were pansies. Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians - it's all Greek to me.
ReplyDeleteAlexander only conquered all those gay people to the East. Real men lived in the West.
OK, I'm getting silly now. I'll wander off for a while and find some links that support my POV.
ReplyDeleteAA:
ReplyDeleteThe early Romans did too think the Greeks were pansies.
Says who? Got link?
Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians - it's all Greek to me.
Quoting Shakespeare now? Not very...masculine, I must say. Hehehehe.
Real men lived in the West.
ROFLMAO!!! Gimmee a freakin' break, fella.
You're fast turning into comic relief here.
Machismo's only for insecure fellows.
"I'm a man, a big fuckin' man, a MANLY man, a man amongst men, I do MANLY things!"
Real men. Snort, chuckle.
AA:
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm getting silly now. I'll wander off for a while and find some links that support my POV.
You should also look at those that don't.
Do you want a balanced, informed opinion, or just what you want to hear?
Humour on:
ReplyDeleteBy the way that gravatar looks really 'gay'. It looks like some gay asian guy in pajamas getting hit by some redneck snipers bullet from across the river.
You got no idea how many gay links there are out there. It's like gay people have rewritten history and posted it on the internet. I see I'm going to have to dust off my Charles Dickens history books
Humour off
Ah well, I've been trying to pull you back up that slippery slope Ka. Fortunately I have my JudeaoChristian magnetic space boots on so I can clamber back up.
Standby for the next installment of AA's History of the World Part II or how the West was Won.
Let me interject about evolution. Social animals like ants for instance don't require many of the ants to be potent.
ReplyDeleteLots of monkeys and apes have alpha males who get to do all the women in the harem. I know the female monkeys often stray with the other monkeys. But we know, that you can never trust a chick.
And Romans had their eunichs to allow Roman Alpha males more time to mate and mate often.
What I'm saying that even in evolution, not everyone has to do the heterosexual thingy to keep the species going.
AA:
ReplyDeleteBy the way that gravatar looks really 'gay'. It looks like some gay asian guy in pajamas getting hit by some redneck snipers bullet from across the river.
Dude, that's ME. Doing a sword routine. Which I've gotten a medal for in an MA tournament.
You got no idea how many gay links there are out there. It's like gay people have rewritten history and posted it on the internet.
You have no idea how many gay people have been in history. Why? They were too scared to 'come out'. Why? Them nasty ole xtians.
I don't doubt there may be a revisionist or 2 (hell, EVERY group has 'em, even atheists), but hinting at a 'radical gay agenda' does NOT help your lopsided arguments in the slightest.
Ah well, I've been trying to pull you back up that slippery slope Ka.
You'll have no luck there.
Standby for the next installment of AA's History of the World Part II or how the West was Won.
Make sure it's as funny as Mel Brooks' version. Thus far, about as accurate.
BEAJ:
What I'm saying that even in evolution, not everyone has to do the heterosexual thingy to keep the species going.
True dat.
AA:
ReplyDeleteOh, here's another 1 for your 'historical' footnotes:
"Inquisitorial repression of the sexual offenses of homosexuality and bestiality, considered, according to Canon Law, crimes against nature, merits separate attention. Homosexuality, known at the time as sodomy, was punished by death by civil authorities. It fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition only in the territories of Aragon, when, in 1524, Clement VII, in a papal brief, granted jurisdiction over sodomy to the Inquisition of Aragon, whether or not it was related to heresy. In Castile, cases of sodomy were not adjudicated, unless related to heresy. The tribunal of Zaragoza distinguished itself for its severity in judging these offenses: between 1571 and 1579 more than 100 men accused of sodomy were processed and at least 36 were executed; in total, between 1570 and 1630 there were 534 trials and 102 executed.[15]"
http://www.answers.com/Spanish%20inquisition
That's just ONE example among many that xtians persecuted homosexuals.
So the aversion is a learned 1, propagated via xtianity.
After a night’s sleep and a period of reading and contemplation I have decided to concede that the Roman Empire did not fall solely due to the eroding affects of Roman ‘gayness’. Although I doubt that Roman ‘gayness’ was considered a fearsome obstacle to the plundering barbarians.
ReplyDeleteI will also concede that it is cruel of me to lump homosexuals in with criminals and other miscreants and retarded people. Is there a gay charity I can donate to as penance?
I do believe that homosexuals are tragic but then all humans are just tragedies waiting to happen. It is the unfortunate conclusion of an atheistic reality. Our only hope is a death that is not too painful and prolonged. Homosexuals are comically tragic and I mean that in the nicest possible way. I would rather be a ‘cool’ homosexual than an ‘uncool’ heterosexual if given the choice. Homosexuals may not be aware that heterosexual males have their fair share of grief in the search for love too.
I would like people to have a read of this link that describes Greek and Roman attitudes toward homosexuality:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo2.htm
I think that the truth is more somewhere between my and ka’s worldview. The Romans certainly regarded homosexuality as ‘the Greek vice’ and a weakness. The Greeks practiced pedastry almost exclusively and were really rather shabby in this regard. Choosing 12 year old boys as sexual toys would not be acceptable today and hopefully not ever. Lets hope that pedastry is not the next bump down that slippery slope. The Roman and Greek attitude toward passive homosexual adults was one of derision which is telling. There was debate about the rightness of pedastry and anti-homosexual people everywhere have an ally in Plato when he condemns it in the Laws. Although he seemed to encourage it when he was younger. Homosexual behaviour flourishes whenever access to females is restricted as was the case in Greece and on board British naval vessels – “rum, buggery and the lash” said Churchill, almost all the ingredients for a gay old time says AA. Prisons, boarding schools, army camps etc all experience this behaviour. However this is not considered true homosexuality and more a consequence of impulses needing an outlet of some sort.
It is interesting that the Anglosphere culture which has mostly condemned homosexuality based on Judeo-Xtian teachings has been uncommonly successful at colonization and economic development. It has also been very successful at furthering the cause of human freedom. Is there a connection or would they have been even more successful had they had ‘the Greek vice’? No one will ever know although homosexuality doesn’t appear to be a pioneer trait. Pioneers needed strong family units and large families to be successful.
The new pioneers currently colonizing the West have strong anti-homo beliefs and large families too by the way.
AA, I guess you could argue that something positive can happen with belief in God. As most of the early pioneers were God fearing as well.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that a form of deluding oneself for the sake of society?
AA:
ReplyDeleteAfter a night’s sleep and a period of reading and contemplation I have decided to concede that the Roman Empire did not fall solely due to the eroding affects of Roman ‘gayness’. Although I doubt that Roman ‘gayness’ was considered a fearsome obstacle to the plundering barbarians.
Well, as the link you provided shows, Theodosius I issued an edict against it. At some juncture, it was indeed widespread, but as xtianity took ferocious hold, it became verboten.
I will also concede that it is cruel of me to lump homosexuals in with criminals and other miscreants and retarded people. Is there a gay charity I can donate to as penance?
Words of a rational person. I respect that. Not being gay myself, I don't have any idea what constitutes 'penance'.
I do believe that homosexuals are tragic but then all humans are just tragedies waiting to happen.
Glass 1/2 empty, ey?
Choosing 12 year old boys as sexual toys would not be acceptable today and hopefully not ever. Lets hope that pedastry is not the next bump down that slippery slope.
Well, mind you, not defending the practice, but it was more than a 'boy toy' relationship, as your link illustrated. & no, I'd have to see some causal links in scientific studies before I'd even grace that w/a nod.
Homosexual behaviour flourishes whenever access to females is restricted as was the case in Greece and on board British naval vessels –
If I may be so bold, I think you may be indulging in Eurocentrism here.
There are multiple catalogued instances, from the ME to India, to China, and the Americas, where same sex unions, while not the 'norm' per se, were accepted as anything but 'deviant' behavior. Pretty much everywhere, until the missionaries came in, & started forcing their religion on the masses.
It is interesting that the Anglosphere culture which has mostly condemned homosexuality based on Judeo-Xtian teachings has been uncommonly successful at colonization and economic development.
Primarily due to aggression.
It has also been very successful at furthering the cause of human freedom.
That's really not so. It was the Founders, seeking to break away from the RC & their practices (NTM John Locke's influence) in the Age of Enlightenment, that brought it about.
Is there a gay charity I can donate to as penance? That was a rhetorical question Ka, lol.
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that you believe Anglosphere culture hasn’t been very successful at furthering the cause of human freedom. Maybe I should have written ‘developed advanced levels of individual liberty reasonably unhindered by corruption and oppression’. The Anglosphere has made massive contributions in the struggle against fascism and communism too. Has developed societies where wealth is fairly evenly distributed. Where eduction and health care is generally available to all – my mainland Chinese friends believe that the true spirit of socialism resides here. It’s not unique to the Anglosphere ( I write Anglosphere because it is easier than writing UK, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand or English speaking people who are not necessarily Anglo Saxons) The quality of life of most citizens in these countries is remarkable, non?. Yet not very successful according to Ka. It seems that only non English speaking people can be proud of their culture and that’s just not fair.
And, anyway, wasn’t John Locke a British philosopher? Britain is part of the Anglosphere surely. Did not the people around him pick up on his ideas and run with them to some extent?
AA:
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that you believe Anglosphere culture hasn’t been very successful at furthering the cause of human freedom.
Note that I used the word 'primarily', not 'exclusively'. There's a valid point.
I also note this statement:
It is interesting that the Anglosphere culture which has mostly condemned homosexuality based on Judeo-Xtian teachings has been uncommonly successful at colonization and economic development.
Unless you can prove a direct causal link, that's casuistry. At 1 juncture, the ancient Greeks get counted too, no?
Maybe I should have written ‘developed advanced levels of individual liberty reasonably unhindered by corruption and oppression’. The Anglosphere has made massive contributions in the struggle against fascism and communism too.
& fascism & communism were rooted where? In the Anglosphere, I believe.
Has developed societies where wealth is fairly evenly distributed. Where eduction and health care is generally available to all – my mainland Chinese friends believe that the true spirit of socialism resides here.
Where is this place? I wanna move there.
It’s not unique to the Anglosphere ( I write Anglosphere because it is easier than writing UK, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand or English speaking people who are not necessarily Anglo Saxons) The quality of life of most citizens in these countries is remarkable, non?.
Sure it is. Warts & all.
Yet not very successful according to Ka. It seems that only non English speaking people can be proud of their culture and that’s just not fair.
I beg your fucking pardon, but I happen to be somewhat proud o' me Irish background. Poets & philosophers.
If you're trying to pigeonhole me as 'anti-white', or anti-anything, you got the wrong guy, sport.
I'm a proponent of credit where credit is due, not stereotypical garbage ("Oog say all white men BAD!").
And, anyway, wasn’t John Locke a British philosopher? Britain is part of the Anglosphere surely. Did not the people around him pick up on his ideas and run with them to some extent?
This 'Anglosphere' thing doesn't wear on you particularly well, for some reason.
Everybody (& I mean the ENTIRE SPECIES, not just 1 select group) has their fuckups as well as their shining moments. So whoop-dee-doo. Not impressed in the slightest.
"Purity of the white anglo-saxon race? I just want to apologize for being a member of the meanest sons of bitches that ever walked the earth." - Clarence Darrow (a WHITE man, I might add, like myself).
Let me leave you w/another 'Anglospheric' quote:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770"
I’m sure we have bored everyone to death by now. I don’t think I have ever made so many comments on one thread before.
ReplyDeleteI guess it is a bit boorish to praise one’s own culture too much. I had hoped to make it clear that Anglosphere culture is not to be confused with Anglo-Saxon culture. Many groups have contributed to this great (oops there I go again) culture not least the Irish. Sorry about leaving them out of my list.
Sure the Greeks have had their influence too. We cherry picked the good stuff and decided to pass on things like pedastry. Some things have influenced us more than others like Protestantism, Puritism, the Magna Carta and Victorian values.
I have learned many things here. I have been called a dipwad, an idiot and told to go fuck myself although I am particularly proud of being called ‘insane’.
I had no idea we were responsible for the curse of fascism and communism. It reminds me of the Iraqi I spoke to who insisted that the English controlled the US and that Iraq was doomed for 500 years – bless him.
I understand the world better now. The Greek ‘warrior’ walking around downtown Athens hand in hand with his 13-year-old boy lover, staring longingly into his eyes and writing love poems to was something to behold. Yet the sturdy pioneer, clutching his Bible and taming the West was, oh so less than perfect – an horrid fundamentalist homophobe and the meanest sonofabitch ever. I also learned that Clarence Darrow was a tosser sometimes. That most of what I ‘know’ is rubbish and the same for what every one else knows too - isn’t that called the beginning of wisdom?
I do appreciate all the time you have expended responding to my comments Ka– you must think that I am redeemable and that is indeed the case. I’m not sure I like how all my comments get bolded and repeated and how you only pick out the stuff you don’t like but each to his own I guess.
Oh, by the way, that place is called New Zealand.