Well, you got me pretty angry several times BEFORE my last post. Wonder why?Oblivion wrote:That hurt and that got me angry and I DON'T GET ANGRY EASILY. But I don't see this topic as something even worth holding grudges for. So I'll be cool and forget about this.
Fine; I'll accept that.I did not insinuate that you treat them differently. And I'm sorry for giving unsolicited advice. There as just no warning signs on this forum. I post here because it seems like a nice diversion to VS. And I did NOT come here to start fights.
All the YOU's were not you alone, and if you feel like I've been contradicting you for the sake of contradiction, please. I meant the general nameless crowd out there.
Ahhh, but then, if you claim that you don't want to start fights, and your interests vary in such a way that they don't include this subject, why come here and doggedly contradict someone who IS interested in this subject, and who DOES google his stuff? Besides, argument ("dialogue"), was invented as a procedure to to get closer to Truth, but you don't seem to care for truth, so what gives?Low. As in waaaay below the belt. just because my interests vary from you, and I don't google my stuff...Just because you're scientifically ignorant and want to remain so
"Facts of life" MY ASS! Whenever truth is compromised in consideration of some sensitivity or political factors, it only prolongs agony.Truth is not always the best thing for everything. This is not an advice, but a fact of life.If the truth offends anyone, that's their problem.
So, to repeat: If you're not interested in a given subject enough to spend a few minutes googling about, then why argue? This subject intersts me enough to google around AND read books AND magazine articles about it, AND talk with people... Is it any surprise to you that someone who spends time researching something might be offended at being contradicted by some opinionated twit who did not research it, and is obviously only mildly interested in it (at best), and that all he can do is regurgitate the commonly held falacies, --when not actually proclaim "truth be damned"?
I don't understand.Oh. So just because we find the correct sexes attractive excludes our psyches from being called a condition.Heterosexuality is NOT a condition, simply because that's what our biology intended.
No it's not. A false statement, propagating a false belief; should be clarified for the benefit of anyone who might read it and for the next ten years be in the dark about it.That's nit-picking.In fact, they are not even formed in childhood, but at the time of transition to adulthood.
Fetishes are formed AT puberty, NOT during childhood. It's like this: We have a (prenatally formed) basic brain circuitry for recognizing opposite sex: In the human male brain it probably recognizes the female's wide hips, breasts, motions, voice pitch, pheromones, etc.
But as species evolve and adapt to environmental conditions, their apparance may change; such as fur or plummage coloring patterns, average amount of body fat, etceteras. This might interfere with "opposite sex recognition", and therefore evolution favored a refinement... So, we have a mechanism triggered AT the onset of puberty, and only lasting a short time, during which the basic opposite sex recognition algorithm gets "dressed up", complemented, adjusted, tuned, fleshed-out... And the way it works is, whenever the basic opposite sex recognition circuit fires up, any other partern recognition circuits, such as fur/skin, patterns of speech, scents, touch feelings, that may be firing at the same time, get connected to it. Thus, at puberty time, the sights of females that attract you become your extended opposite sex recognition apparatus; --that's when the picture consolidates.
So, to take myself for example, when I was a child, women used to wear long skirts. At the time of my puberty, the fashion was short skirts. Shortly after the onset of my puberty time, the women's fashion changed to tight shorts. But neither long skirts ***nor shorts*** do much for me. My fetish is definitely mini-skirts. When I read about this mechanism being activated at puberty, I felt enlightened by it, and I like to pass on the knowledge of how it works to other people, who might also feel enlightened by it. The idea that fetishes develop in childhood is WRONG, incorrect, and unenlightening. For me this is important. If for you it isn't, then I can understand you might think of my correction as "nit-picking"; but for me it IS important.
It is important also in understanding the role that media may play on sexual disfunction, as well as fetishes... In our present society, thanks to the religious prudes that still rule the day, people reach puberty and, in many cases, aren't even exposed to nudity. Chances are they might, for the rest of their lives, have to fantasize that the person they are in bed with is dressed, in order to maintain arousal. This is NO joking matter. And the images they see that attract them the most, during puberty, are from magazines or television, which means that their tactile and olfactory recognition circuits won't be connected to the general gender recognition picture. Opposite gender scent and pheromones may be of no consequence to them, from then on. A lot of men in present society are insensitive to women's arousal, or lack thereof, simply because it wasn't part of the images in girly mags they were browsing at the time they reached puberty. Same goes for women, who often need to fantasize their husbands in a 3-piece suit, or dressed as a fireman. Or like my cousin, whose recurrent fantasy was long haired guys lining up at a military base, getting their heads shaven; probably because she saw some scene like that at a movie. Or women who need to get spanked because they had their first orgasm while getting spanked by their daddies. We're living in a society that is 99% sexually disfunctional, due to prudish traditions, like calling nudity "inappropriate" or "unhealthy" for children to see, which is an absurdity that only serves to perpetuate prudishness by instilling in our children a sense of shame about the human body. We even have software to facilitate this injustice, like net nanny or whatever it's called. High technology at the service of collective madness being passed down to new generations. Children should be exposed to nudity from early on, and specially to nude opposite sex at the time they reach puberty, for their future mental health.
That's why I corrected you when you said "fetishes form in childhood". It is important that we understand exactly where our societal problems come from, if we're ever going to be able to put an end to them.
Yes, really. As a matter of fact, I used to work at a community radio station for three years, and I was one of the ***very few*** "straights" there (make that 3, out of about 100 people); I got invited to gay and lesbian parties all the time; most of my friends were gay or lesbian or bi, in those days; --and in fact I don't personally know any researchers (except one in plasma physics). And I did get answers from gays; lots of them; which are part of my mental model now. FYI, there may be differences between what answers gays give to people they've just met, from the answers they give to someone in confidence, once they trust the other party. Behind the political facade, some might tell you they felt there was "something wrong with them", before even puberty --long before they felt "discriminated against". That's why I said in an earlier post that gays aren't necessarily happy people, despite the semantic roots of the term. They live tortured lives, that a bit of scientific understanding could clarify and help them come to grips with it all. The same scientific understanding, in fact, which would also help heterosexual society relax about homosexuality and stop attributing it to "the devil", or some other equally ignorant theory. The same scientific understanding that could lead to methods for early diagnosis of health or dietary conditions in pregnant women, and a possible treatment; if the subject was not so "politicized", and ignorance being considered politically necessary.Oh really? And it really doesn't change the reality. How many gays do you know, instead of just researchers? Have you ever asked one how he/she thought he/she became gay? You'll get answers. And don't blame me if it doesn't coincide with the "studies".All attempts to connect homosexuality to childhood environment or experiences in studies have failed
Sure, gays will outwardly tell you that they are happy and proud, but in confidence they might break into tears and tell you about the feelings of guilt and shame they fight against all the time. IMO, admitting scientific evidence that their condition is a tiny malformation in the brain is a very small price to pay, for an understanding that would finally release them from all that guilt and shame and insecurity. VERY small price to pay. And necessary, because straights KNOW, deep inside, that there's "something wrong" with homosexuals; but the problem is they don't know exactly what is wrong. Being told that there isn't anything wrong with them, only exacerbates their problem with it. It fuels the fire of misunderstanding. All that heterosexual society needs, really, is the confirmation of the correctness of their correct intuition, and a clarification of what EXACTLY is wrong with them. Seeing that it was neither their fault, nor can be treated, nor cured, will cure the problem of hatred, and silence the preachers. But insisting on the falacy that gayness is normal and healthy won't help clarify matters, won't help heterosexuals or homosexuals in any way but the most superficial.
Can't parse...So just because there are studies showing that it seems like, or people saying it is. At least I chose what seems reasonable to believe in freudan psychology. Not swallow it whole. And do tell me, if a surgeon finally founds the human soul lodged somewhere near the pineal gland, or if a study proves that the moon is actually made of cheese.
I know they don't like like hearing about brain malformations... (Heh... Tell me about it... LOL!) Their "culture" has built up a house of cards on the premise that homosexuality is "natural" and a "healthy condition" (as well as the incorrect assumption, in many cases, that there's something wrong with **heterosexuals**, like equating heterosexuality to "homophobia"). This is a house of cards built on shakey ground, and it will come down, one way or another; and the less painful way for it to come down would be, I tell them, to take it down in an orderly way and build something better instead, based on scientific understanding.And arguing about what IS a condition is pointless. I just wanted to LET those who might not know (which obviously excludes you, it seems), that they don't like to be treated like it's a sickness. Much less, the vague references to brain "malformations".
Point taken. People wear clothes in subways, though; I just happened to read an article a few years ago that revealed some disturbing stats.What you call common hermaphrodites. Are NOT hermaphrodites. They are those that exhibit the external physical characteristics of both sexes, but are NOT capable of reproductive functions with BOTH organs. I will not debate on that further. As you seemed to have see at least 3 in every subway crowd.Do you really think sexuality is formed by balance between estrogen and testosterone?".
It did cross my mind, but when people edit their posts, *after* the posts are replied to, there's a notice automatically tagged at the bottom of the post saying "Edited on..." date such and so. That was something I looked at right away, and I noticed that you hadn't edited it; so I knew I'd simply missed it. Your theory that I was insinuating anything at all is all in your head.I confess, I do just scan your posts, because as opposed to you people, I'm not always online. And I apologize if I don't always end up with the correct conclusiona s to the gist of your post. But then, I take that accusation back at you. I'm pretty sure I just might as well not spoken many times.you just ignore everything I DO say, and then insinuate I said things I DIDN'T say...
AndI tried to think of these in friendly terms. I know now it's NOT. And if you're implying I editted the post just to show that I mentioned a book. I did not. I hesitated to edit it to highlight the book and correct the missing S. NOTHING GETS ME ANGRIER THAN IMPLYING THAT I'M A SNEAKY SONOFABITCH WHO WOULD LIE TO GLORIFY MYSELF.Quote:Quote:Huh... I seem to have missed that... funny.probably coz it's not highlightd? or the alway is missing an S.For some unknown reason, I'd totally missed it too.
Maybe you people treat each other that way over there. Maybe you see it as okay, because after all, I'm not even a westerner who, it seems, has all the rights to call themselves intelligent. Just because I do not have the access to as much information as I would have wanted to, doesn't make me stupid. I don't care if my opinions do not carry as much weight as yours. As long as I'm pretty sure it's being respected as I respected yours.
Oh. Like your last line. REAAALLY nice. Like "Fuck that monkey, I wouldn't actually believe he CAN read, would I? And If he does, hell Dr.Seuss is probably the pinnacle of literary achievements in his library. So I'll just ignore him".
I think the reason I missed it was that it was "just" a little, un-sexy piece of info, floating right in the middle of attention-grabbing arguments. If it had been at the beginning or the end of the post, I probably would have noticed it more consciously, and googled it.
Uhmm... Last line you quoted wasn't mine. Who's Dr. Seuss, anyways? If it's some TV character you're talking about, you've lost me; I don't watch TV at all.
LOL! All I know about Aryans is that they supposedly invaded India from the North, 5000 years ago or so. I'm not even sure what an Aryan looks like; but maybe you know that they moved to Montreal, and I don't; but although I may live in Montreal, my country of origin is almost as far as yours from Montreal, close to the South Pole. Maybe you thought my avatar pic was me... That's Professor Monkhouse, from Privateer, FYI. Is that what an Aryan looks like? LOLOh sure, I love to contradict because I like to get people mad. And I'm always looking for ways which I can be degraded by the superior Aryans.So, if you're going to continue contradicting me gratuitously, then
a) Do so without: 1) twisting my words, 2) saying that I said things I didn't say, 3) giving me personal advice, or 4) insinuating I treat gays differently, and
b) Come up with some data in support of your uninformed opinion that gayness develops during childhood.
Don't worry; I know a lot of smart people from the Philippines, including a coworker of mine who's really cool. There's no chance I will take you as being representative...
Add to the above list:SO OKAY. I can take a hint, even if it has to be something as blatant as raining me with insults. If that's how you usually make a point with others, then I'm sorry if I thought otherwise. I keep an open mind and If I threaten you in any way, then write it off as another "Asians-invading our homelands" thing.
And I'm really angry right now. I will shut my mouth but I will not apologize for something that does not need an apology.
a5) Without insinuating political or racial motivations.
It is actually pretty obvious that you like to contradict. You yourself said you "just scan" my posts, that you don't "google up stuff", that truth being second to politics (or something else?) should be accepted as a "fact of life"; and I'm sure you haven't read any of the stuff I posted links to in my previous post. Now, HAVE YOU? In other words, you're here wasting your time, mine, and everyone else's ... for what, if not "to contradict" for contradiction's sake?
Overall, though; in this post you've started to argue slightly decently. Well, not quite, but at least you did read my post. Anger seems to bring out the best in you.
And even though you claim not to care for truth too much, you do seem to care for it when you imagine someone's falsely accused you of being "sneaky", or whatever. Well, that's a start; maybe I will some day convince you that truth is better than falsehood more often than you presently seem to think.
I'll definitely try to make you agry more often; that seems to work.
EDIT:
Oh, btw, apollogies do nothing for me, anyways. Like when people say "have a good day" and wouldn't care... err.. probably would enjoy.. if a truck ran over you. Just another stupid tradition, so someone must apollogize, and someone else must "accept the apollogy"... and it's just wasted words, wasted time; --none of it means anything, an empty ritual... I'd rather you presented a good argument, for a friggin change; or stuck to art, which you're really good at, and got off the potty.
So don't apologize, please; not for my sake, anyways; but, if I were you, I'd stop accusing someone who's giving you free server space to upload stuff to, of discriminating against you on the basis of nationality or race. There's a point at which, even the most patient man will say, "might as well deserve what I get"; and I'm not that most patient man...
- that Nature/Biology has no intentions. Everything so far has been accidental. Everything we are now is just a different state of a vehicle that serves to propagate a certain complex molecule. So there is no NORMAL and ABNORMAL for me. A hunk of jagged rock, if left to itself in a vacuum for a looong time (say gazillions, 
), will eventually become a perfect sphere. So does the nature, nothing in it is the intended permanent state. I'm not saying you say otherwise, I'm just stating my belief.
turn the arrow around
Scratch that one out. Anyway, I get your meaning. 
But anyways, I'm glad it's over.
To the left of the switchable mirror, a photodetector. It needs for the light to behave as a particle in order to respond to a photon hitting it.