• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Martijn, i see no such problems in my country; i don't doubt they exist where you noticed them, but seriously things are so much better than in the past, and at least making progress. I still do believe the world has so many serious problems to deal with right now, energy-wise, war/conflict/interest, economy and profit-wise, you of all should know them and their status excellently; it's all a matter of priorities in life and let's just say that this matter doesn't hold no.1 for me. I already said much more than what i initially planned anyway. smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Same stuff. Pc and ethics, all inter-weaved and mixed, very thin limits


    Interlinked, yes. Thin limits, not really.
    Every society will find and (re)define ethics, but that doesn't mean there are no principles or standards at all. But I agree they are flexible (up to a point).

    not completely giving an ass mate; i always had and will always have my own set of rules and ethics smile


    Then how on earth are you able to function in a society? confused
    Or in any social context?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn, i see no such problems in my country; i don't doubt they exist where you noticed them, but seriously things are so much better than in the past, and at least making progress. I still do believe the world has so many serious problems to deal with right now, energy-wise, war/conflict/interest, economy and profit-wise, you of all should know them and their status excellently; it's all a matter of priorities in life and let's just say that this matter doesn't hold no.1 for me. I already said much more than what i initially planned anyway. smile


    I think you're dodging the point by saying this isn't your main concern, especially as no-one is saying it should be. Whether this is your top priority or not is very much beside the point. The point you made is you feel homosexuality and pedophilia are, in effect, two sides to the same coin (unless you want to expand on that a little?). We are arguing that this simply isn't the case. And it's nothing to do with you not sharing my or our point of view, but rather adhering to a completely backward point of view. There are many different points of view other than my own that I can accept and even respect. This one unfortunately I cannot. So there's little hypocrisy here.

    (And just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it: no-one is getting angry. What would be the point?)
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn, i see no such problems in my country;

    With all due respect, D., that's probably because you're not gay, and not much interested in the issue. In fact, Greece doesn't have the best reputation for being gay-friendly, with several discriminatory aspects ingrained in the very law (article 347 requiring a higher age of consent for male -male relationships than other ones, forbidden entry in the military, mandatory testing for STDs et cetera)

    I still do believe the world has so many serious problems to deal with right now, energy-wise, war/conflict/interest, economy and profit-wise, you of all should know them and their status excellently; it's all a matter of priorities in life and let's just say that this matter doesn't hold no.1 for me.


    Fair enough.
    Professional activists who rail and rant against every conceivable issue in the world hold little of my sympathy either, but the whole discussion was mounted because you started (or at the very least seemed) to equate paedophilia with homosexuality, something booth Steven and I strongly take issue with.
    The issue is never that anyone expects you to worry about every single wrong in the world.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile

    Yes, currently your ethics concerning paedophiles and homosexuals are in question, as they seem (and note that I use that word very deliberately!) in powerful contrast to that of western societies in general (as witnessed through observations of ethics AND law).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Steven, i don't want to expand 'cause I found in previous experiences of mine that it doesn't worth it, since i have no major reason - personally speaking, to go through this.

    Most people are surprisingly (compared to other extreme or idiotic at times views on other things they might carry) touchy, defensive and close-minded when it comes to stuff like this; i am not talking about you since you've proven otherwise in the past, but believe me, since it doesn't directly concern me, i find it too much of an effort to expand on these things more, esp. on the interwebs.

    The way i see it, society is still too close-minded on many subjects, no matter if the media and the general hiatus is trying to promote the contrary; and it pretty much goes by the general hiatus of the masses for most people, if it's cool to bash gays, we'll bury the contrary but now that it's not cool to do that, will bury anyone who is reverse-minded.

    As far as i am concerned, there's one physical way things are supposed to be done and before you reach to that, no it doesn't have to do with religion; AT ALL so spare me any possible references. It's the physicality and the history of the sexes i am talking about, and of course the purpose of every sexual activity with all animals (including human), which is of course to continue spreading the species. Anything else is a deviation no matter how you want to see it and label it, no matter how the times command and no matter if people accept it or not.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Martijn wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile

    Yes, currently your ethics concerning paedophiles and homosexuals are in question, as they seem (and note that I use that word very deliberately!) in powerful contrast to that of western societies in general (as witnessed through observations of ethics AND law).


    Overblowing things much? Seriously; cool-off. Since you're both well-educated and civilized, i expect you not to rush to nail someone 'cause they don't share your ethics.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    As far as i am concerned, there's one physical way things are supposed to be done and before you reach to that, no it doesn't have to do with religion; AT ALL so spare me any possible references. It's the physicality and the history of the sexes i am talking about, and of course the purpose of every sexual activity with all animals (including human), which is of course to continue spreading the species. Anything else is a deviation no matter how you want to see it and label it, no matter how the times command and no matter if people accept it or not.


    Same-sex relationships certainly makes little sense in a survival-of-the-species aspect, but then so does a lot about human qualities. As I and Matt were recently discussing, where does the perception of beauty come from? Music? Art? What survival purposes do they serve? We should not also forget that homosexuality isn't only reserved for Homo sapiens as it happens all over the animal kingdom.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile

    Yes, currently your ethics concerning paedophiles and homosexuals are in question, as they seem (and note that I use that word very deliberately!) in powerful contrast to that of western societies in general (as witnessed through observations of ethics AND law).


    Overblowing things much? Seriously; cool-off. Since you're both well-educated and civilized, i expect you not to rush to nail someone 'cause they don't share your ethics.


    D, you're the one getting hot under the collar here. wink

    As we've explained, it's not a case of rushing to 'nail someone' because they don't share our ethics. It's a case of trying to get you to understand why your ethics in this matter are perhaps a little skewed. If we can't, so be it. Nothing much else we can do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    and it pretty much goes by the general hiatus of the masses for most people, if it's cool to bash gays, we'll bury the contrary but now that it's not cool to do that, will bury anyone who is reverse-minded.


    That's an odd argument.
    It was very in in the 1890s to hate Jews.
    Now it's not.
    Is that a simple reversal of ethics as you seem to suggest, or was it possibly not OK to start with?

    As far as i am concerned, there's one physical way things are supposed to be done

    biggrin
    I was waiting for that one.
    Supposed!
    Who, do you think, is doing the supposing here? And who or what has made that supposition the ground rule?
    I used to think like that, a long time ago, that there was a natural biological imperative that overrode all. It was all about procreation (I thought logically), and we do not find such aberration in the rest of nature, do we?
    Therefore, I thought, it could assuredly be no more than a choice.

    ...and then I witnessed a couple of lesbian geese.
    And found that homosexuality is absolutely rampant throughout the animal kingdom.
    And just like that, in the face of such overwhelming evidence, my thinking flipped.

    Sex ISN'T just about procreation. Not even with animals. There is no "one true way". It's imply untrue! And observably so!
    It's about FUN and INTIMACY and RECREATION and LOVE as well!
    smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile

    Yes, currently your ethics concerning paedophiles and homosexuals are in question, as they seem (and note that I use that word very deliberately!) in powerful contrast to that of western societies in general (as witnessed through observations of ethics AND law).


    Overblowing things much? Seriously; cool-off. Since you're both well-educated and civilized, i expect you not to rush to nail someone 'cause they don't share your ethics.


    If I misstated your point of view concerning your own stance on the difference/comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia I will be more than happy to be corrected.

    I neither overblow, nor nail.
    That's not what I do, nor what I care about.
    I try to reason. As always. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    I am getting seriously annoyed that Steven keeps on making my points seconds before I do. angry


    wink
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    biggrin

    My bad. shame

    Martijn wrote:
    It's about FUN and INTIMACY and RECREATION and LOVE as well!


    Absofrigginlutely! cheesy

    This is why I shy away from evolutionary biology as a subject since it often describes things in such unfriendly, cold (though undeniably accurate) ways. I sure as hell appreciate it... I just don't worry about it too much.

    I much prefer the realm of physics where philosophy and thought plays a much bigger part!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Steven wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn wrote
    Christodoulides wrote
    There's common ground always; do you observe any problems with me, for instance, and my set of rules and ethics when interacting with society? smile

    Yes, currently your ethics concerning paedophiles and homosexuals are in question, as they seem (and note that I use that word very deliberately!) in powerful contrast to that of western societies in general (as witnessed through observations of ethics AND law).


    Overblowing things much? Seriously; cool-off. Since you're both well-educated and civilized, i expect you not to rush to nail someone 'cause they don't share your ethics.


    D, you're the one getting hot under the collar here. wink

    As we've explained, it's not a case of rushing to 'nail someone' because they don't share our ethics. It's a case of trying to get you to understand why your ethics in this matter are perhaps a little skewed. If we can't, so be it. Nothing much else we can do.


    It's like this in THIS case, with this audience here (you). It's not a rule, don't generalize wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    ..huh?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    I am saying that not everyone shares your thoughts on the matter; it's just happens that 2 (or more) of you now standing opposite to me, have gathered here at this instance. Drop the "i am right" flag a bit 'cause points and opinions variate greatly in the world smile
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    That kind of cultural relativism doesn't fly with me, D.
    That's the exact same argument that is being used to kill people, maim children or subjugate women (NOT, obviously, that you'd be wanting to do that wink .I'm just talking about the reasoning involved. )

    There are some things which are simply wrong no matter what variation in opinions there may be in the world. Paedophilia is one of them (people get HURT!).
    Homosexuality is most definitely not (people do not get hurt ...other than by myopic and biased reactions from their surroundings).

    I'm happy for you not to care very much about the issue (as is, as I said, your prerogative).
    I'm NOT happy to leave that outstanding comparison (between homosexuality and paedophilia) stand as "just another opinion". That would suggest that that opinion is making valid points.

    While you may feel differently about it (and I have not for a second the idea that I can erase decades of social and cultural imprinting and personal beliefs) both Steven and I have argued -successfully as I have seen no challenge to it- that it is NOT!
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Martijn, the reality is that the little boy who has been cruelty abused by his fat smelly uncle when he was little, will most likely grow up to be an adult homosexual. So yeah, relax. Things might not be as innocent, as widely separated or as black and white as you present them to be, the one abolished into the eternal fires of hell and the other being the absolute no-touch territory or rights.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn, the reality is that the little boy who has been cruelty abused by his fat smelly uncle when he was little, will most likely grow up to be an adult homosexual.


    I would love to see some data on that, D.
    (Spare yourself the effort. This is an old wives tale.)

    Things might not be as innocent, as widely separated or as black and white as you present them to be, the one abolished into the eternal fires of hell and the other being the absolute no-touch territory or rights.


    When everything is relative, nothing is ever wrong, and no issue can ever be challenged.
    It's simply no basis for any society to evolve upon. It is the ultimate libertarian point of view, where there is no moral authority other than what the individual demands at any given time.
    It's simply unworkable, and worse than that: used FAR too often to the too-softhearted or fearful to excuse the most horrid of atrocities.

    I don't buy it.
    At all.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn, the reality is that the little boy who has been cruelty abused by his fat smelly uncle when he was little, will most likely grow up to be an adult homosexual. So yeah, relax. Things might not be as innocent, as widely separated or as black and white as you present them to be, the one abolished into the eternal fires of hell and the other being the absolute no-touch territory or rights.


    biggrin

    You are quite spectacularly (almost elegantly) completely missing our point.

    What me and Martijn have explained time and time again in this thread is that the issue of pedophilia and the issue of homosexuality are two separate entities NOT of the same playing field. The only sense in which they appear on the same playing field is if you were to 'zoom out' - which would mean taking heterosexuality into account too. That larger playing field would simply be the subject of sexuality in general, and smaller issues would constitute as separate sections on this imaginary field. If we zoom back down to your comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia, it loses all meaning since the two are utterly incomparable in such detail. One necessarily causes harm and the other doesn't. To imply they hold equal implications is just absurd. It has nothing to do with our lack of ability to accept another point-of-view, it's simply a matter of RIGHT and WRONG.

    What you can't argue is that a difference in opinion implies equal validity on both sides. With this kind of logic, you might as well argue that the men that crashed the jumbo jets into the World Trade Center had valid opinions. I'm sure we can all agree that they didn't. My point is not to compare you or your opinions to extreme Muslim fundamentalists, but to simply prove that the validity of some opinions are far less than others. And the reason we argue that yours is less valid is simply because it is a mind-set that can be harmful to society on a whole, and is based on a lack of understanding.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    All right, i am wrong and harmful to society, obviously, in violent contrast to others, like you for instance, as we are at it; satisfied? Next time a fancy gay parade passes by my street i'll try to join and annoy others with my difference and all, let's see if we can try and change the evil inside me. wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    You are not (of course). This opinion, arguably uninformed as it is, IS, as it perpetrates ignorance and bias, which I'm sure you'll agree are not particularly constructive things in any context.

    And why on earth would you want to join a gay parade if you're not gay? confused
    I've never even seen one of those.
    Ridiculous display, as far as I'm concerned.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    "but to simply prove that the validity of some opinions are far less than others. And the reason we argue that yours is less valid is simply because it is a mind-set that can be harmful to society on a whole, and is based on a lack of understanding."
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    "but to simply prove that the validity of some opinions are far less than others. And the reason we argue that yours is less valid is simply because it is a mind-set that can be harmful to society on a whole, and is based on a lack of understanding."


    smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    All right, i am wrong and harmful to society, obviously, in violent contrast to others, and you as we are at it; satisfied? Next time a fancy gay parade passes by my street i'll try to join and annoy others with my difference and all, let's see if we can try and change the evil inside me. wink


    Now you're just being childish. wink

    I'm not saying you are directly harmful to society. I'm saying your opinion on this matter is harmful to society on a whole. If everyone thought like you did, life would be pretty damn awful for homosexuals because they would be treated unfairly.

    You don't have to like homosexuality, you don't have to join in on the fun... but you should at least accept that we live in a world of homosexuality, and accept it for what it is; natural. (If it were unnatural, it would HAVE to be a choice. But it's not.) That's called progress.

    (Although I can understand why gay parades happen, I can't say I agree that being gay is something to be proud of as is so often is expressed by these types of rallies. It's just nothing to be ashamed of, in much the same way heterosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of!)
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    It's an exception; it's not the rule, and it's not exactly natural. You, and Martijn and everyone of us didn't come from lesbian geese or a homosexual couple. It's everyone's choice to do what they want with their lives and genitals, but when it comes to gay couples adopting children without their choice, i think that it's a matter that has to be dealt with lots of thought, maturity as well as moderation.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009 edited
    Christodoulides wrote
    It's an exception; it's not the rule, and it's not exactly natural. You, and Martijn and everyone of us didn't come from lesbian geese or a homosexual couple. It's everyone's choice to do what they want with their lives and genitals, but when it comes to gay couples adopting children without their choice, i think that it's a matter that has to be dealt with lots of thought, maturity as well as moderation.


    Then what IS the rule? Who says the so-called rule is the be all and end all to life? Thing is, there IS no one rule to rule them all. Evolution is a game of chance coupled with very long periods of time. Just about anything can happen, and I don't think it's very likely that a Big Rule was set out from the first time a germ split in two. Shit happens as they say.

    And of course we weren't born from a same-sex couple. It's physically impossible*. But that doesn't mean same-sex relationships and sex is unnatural... it's just bad survival instincts in an evolutionary sense. As I said, if it were unnatural, it would have to be a choice. But since we have no say of whether we are straight of gay, we can't go against that nature and choose to be one thing or the other. Our sexuality is chosen for us by nature.

    *Although don't forget asexuality in the animal kingdom.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    It's an exception; it's not the rule, and it's not exactly natural. You, and Martijn and everyone of us didn't come from lesbian geese or a homosexual couple.


    You think there are no lesbian couples with children?
    There's this little thing called artificial insemination D. Would you consider that unnatural?

    when it comes to gay couples adopting children without their choice, i think that it's a matter that has to be dealt with lots of thought, maturity as well as moderation.


    That's a COMPLETELY different issue, with completely different arguments.
    We were still on the paedophilia vs. homosexuality issue. smile
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    Martijn, the reality is that the little boy who has been cruelty abused by his fat smelly uncle when he was little, will most likely grow up to be an adult homosexual. So yeah, relax. Things might not be as innocent, as widely separated or as black and white as you present them to be, the one abolished into the eternal fires of hell and the other being the absolute no-touch territory or rights.


    You'll find that what you just described can turn into a cycle of child abuse, with the abused growing up to become an abuser ( though this is not always the case ). As far as I know and from what I've read, no one 'turns' into a homosexual.

    And Martijn, Amsterdam is the worlds gay capital? I thought it was Sydney!? wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt