...christian scientist...

[Halleck]

Even the states have not yet forgotten their civil war. I wager most of you would even be proud to be a "confederate". And regard "yankee unioners" as wimpy...

"Most" of us? What gives you this idea?
Perhaps in the south. The south has political power, but most of the population is (as far as I know) centered on the coasts, particularily in New York and Los Angeles. Conservatives live there, republicans live there, but that doesn't mean that ex-confederate seccessionists live there.

It would seem so too, for the "civilized" North America and Europe. Bigotry, racism, anarchy, etc is gaining ground in your younger generations. Look at the rift growing between the "white" and "black" populations.

The growing rift? Are you implying there wasn't a rift before, or that it was smaller?
What about the seventies? What about the early sixties?

I attend a heavily integrated school, with students of many ethnicites and economic backgrounds. I have not percieved much, if any animosity between middle and upper-class whites and people of most other ethnicities, in particular blacks, latinos, and pacific islanders from the lower-income area of east palo alto. For the most part, the groups seem to get along fine and generally keep to themselves. Oh, and the east palo alto people ask whites for money a lot (I'm not joking.)

As well as with the other major ethnic minorities. America is the only country I know where you would be labelled something based on ancestry. Hispanics are "spics".

I've never heard that term used, ever. If anything, someone might call a latino a "mexican" even if they aren't from mexico.

I agree that there is some definite prejudice and strong stereotypes ingrained into our society, but the kind of outright derogatory treatment you describe rarely occurs, except perhaps in a joking fashion.

Asians are "chinks".

Again, the only time I've heard that term used is by people talking about "how bad discrimination is getting". Sure, there are stereotypes. Most people expect asians to be really smart and perhaps overachievers. Also at my school, we expect them to be good at badminton, but maybe that's just because my school's badminton team is 100% asian.

people from the middle east will almost always be equated with a "terrorist". etc.

This is one area that I think discrimination is reaching a critically dangerous level. We are so wired to assume that anybody from the middle east could potentially be a terrorist, that it spawns terrible hatred and phobias.

The one group nowadays that I think is subject to the widest hatred and prejudice is the gay community. If people find out (or merely think) that a person is gay, regardless of their ethnicity, they will be relentlessly teased, hazed, ostracized, and in some extreme cases even beaten. I talked about not hearing derogatory terms a lot, but I hear people getting called "faggot" all the time. Most gays are not willing to admit their own homosexuality because of the extreme and unchecked prejudice they face- institutionalized prejudice at that. Even the government openly discriminates against gays!

If what we need is a new civil rights movement, I think that movement should aim for equality for gays in society, and to end the hatred and extreme prejudice against them.

For a country championing equality, it seems, America is becoming the most xenophobic nation I know.

We also champion democracy and freedom, and yet look how blatantly we violate the sovereignty of other nations and the civil liberties of our own citizens...

[chuck_starchaser]

Another cultural aspect I'd like to see change, all over the world... it may seem like a small detail, but... The tradition of pricing policies based on quantities. Say I have a small business and I want to buy boxes of staples. I look at the price list and it says,Code:

Code: Select all

Between 1 and 9 price is x
10 to 49 price is y
50 to 199 price is z

I'm not really that knowledgeable on economics, etc. But that kind of pricing sounds fair to me. Bulk demand is much more preferable than individual. It takes the burden off manufacturers'/suppliers' backs by ensuring that they would not have to worry of being overstocked. Not enough buyers, etc.

First of all, I never called step-wise pricing schemes "unfair". In a free market, any pricing is "fair", since buyers have a choice of supplier.
Bulk demand is certainly preferable, but to what extent do those pricing schemes succeed in turning non-bulk into bulk demand? Do you go to the store to buy a toaster and end up walking out with 100 because you saved 40% on the price per unit? Most of the time we buy whatever quantity we require, no matter what the pricing scheme might be. Even resellers will try to avoid over-stocking, as overstocking causes losses on two fronts: Space occupied by the items, and money tied up that could be earning interest if invested some other way. Wholesale suppliers have nothing to gain from complicating prices. They do it because it's a tradition.
Besides, I did NOT say that price should be flat. What I said is that a flat price per unit PLUS a per-purchase and/or per-shipment fee, would achieve the same kind of function more simply and elegantly. Should read what one says before contradicting.

The one group nowadays that I think is subject to the widest hatred and prejudice is the gay community. If people find out (or merely think) that a person is gay, regardless of their ethnicity, they will be relentlessly teased, hazed, ostracized, and in some extreme cases even beaten. I talked about not hearing derogatory terms a lot, but I hear people getting called "faggot" all the time. Most gays are not willing to admit their own homosexuality because of the extreme and unchecked prejudice they face- institutionalized prejudice at that. Even the government openly discriminates against gays!
If what we need is a new civil rights movement, I think that movement should aim for equality for gays in society, and to end the hatred and extreme prejudice against them.

LOL! America is such a country of extremes. When I was living in LA I felt discriminated against for NOT being gay. I remember one weekend my room-mate said "Hey, let's go to a dance club, meet some chicks." We hopped on his car, Yellow Pages in hand, looking for dance club addresses. Drove all over Hollywood and Santa Monica, and it seemed every club was for gay men only. Then we got to a club where we saw some sexy girls lining up to get in; but it turned out to be for lesbians only. Finally we found a dance club with room for straight people, but the music was just oldies, like Beetles and stuff; and they had another section at the back where the music was more contemporary, but that section was for gays and lesbians. So I ended up going to the back cause I just couldn't stand the music at the front, and in the end I met a chick there that wasn't lesbian but was in the back for the same reason... But she was black, me white, and we got some drinks poured on us from somewhere upstairs... but I digress, I guess you're talking about specific states discriminating against gays? I can't imagine it being the case in California.

[Kangaroo]

LOL! America is such a country of extremes. When I was living in LA I felt discriminated against for NOT being gay. I remember one weekend my room-mate said "Hey, let's go to a dance club, meet some chicks." We hopped on his car, Yellow Pages in hand, looking for dance club addresses. Drove all over Hollywood and Santa Monica, and it seemed every club was for gay men only. Then we got to a club where we saw some sexy girls lining up to get in; but it turned out to be for lesbians only. Finally we found a dance club with room for straight people, but the music was just oldies, like Beetles and stuff; and they had another section at the back where the music was more contemporary, but that section was for gays and lesbians. So I ended up going to the back cause I just couldn't stand the music at the front, and in the end I met a chick there that wasn't lesbian but was in the back for the same reason... But she was black, me white, and we got some drinks poured on us from somewhere upstairs... but I digress, I guess you're talking about specific states discriminating against gays? I can't imagine it being the case in California.

Won't find that in Latvia. Never seen any club for homosexuals here. And the girls here are very cool . The only difference here between clubs is that some of them are for russians and some for latvians.

[klauss]

the spreading of refrains and sayings as a substitute for critical thinking.

I've seen the extreme case of that kind. It even became an inside joke in my family, hehe... like a conditional reflex: "J: Diálogo P: De platón"

I'm lost there...

Quote-in-quote-in-quote-in-quoting
Ok - J: Juan, P: Pedro - classic John Doe names.
J: someone, P: that guy that keeps clicking on famous phrases.
You say something remotely connected to some saying, refrain, or very known phrase (even book titles), and the guy just clicks and repeats it. It's really funny, but the most fun part is that, invariably, after doing that he laughs with a very peculiar laughter.
Always the same routine - that's the strangest part of it.
We had lots of fun at his expense (we're naughty...)

Sorry... I usually don't do that, but you had to listen to that guy - resisting the temptation alone would turn you into a saint.

[Halleck]

LOL! America is such a country of extremes. When I was living in LA I felt discriminated against for NOT being gay. I remember one weekend my room-mate said "Hey, let's go to a dance club, meet some chicks." We hopped on his car, Yellow Pages in hand, looking for dance club addresses. Drove all over Hollywood and Santa Monica, and it seemed every club was for gay men only. Then we got to a club where we saw some sexy girls lining up to get in; but it turned out to be for lesbians only. Finally we found a dance club with room for straight people, but the music was just oldies, like Beetles and stuff; and they had another section at the back where the music was more contemporary, but that section was for gays and lesbians. So I ended up going to the back cause I just couldn't stand the music at the front, and in the end I met a chick there that wasn't lesbian but was in the back for the same reason... But she was black, me white, and we got some drinks poured on us from somewhere upstairs... but I digress, I guess you're talking about specific states discriminating against gays? I can't imagine it being the case in California.

Okay, this is sometimes the case in big cities (up here in San Francisco sometimes as well) but come on. Are you saying that the presence of a lot of gay nightclubs in the city mitigates the extreme prejudice and hatred that gays face?

I know you were kind of joking, but I don't think this is to be taken lightly. The hatred and discrimination I'm talking about does go on here in california, less so perhaps than in other places. I think that college communities and urban adult communities are a lot more accepting of gays, but it's very, very hard to be an openly gay teenager (although lesbians and bisexual women seem to be more accepted.)

Not only are gays discriminated against, but a lot of society imposes that we should like people of the opposite sex and that this is the only kind of "wholesome" love and family. A lot of people even have trouble admitting it to themselves with all the taboos against it that still exist today. I know a guy that was married and had a kid before he came to terms with the fact that he was gay. A lot of people don't ever come to terms with it until much later in life because it's too painful to admit to themselves, their family, and their friends. It's as if being gay means that you're abnormal, that there's something "wrong" with you. It doesn't have to be this way, if people would just accept that sexual orientation is just part of who you are, like your ethnicity, your religion, etc.

Gays are even discriminated against by the government, in particular the gay marraige issue. In a lot of places, homosexuals with life partners are unable to derive the benefits given to heterosexual life couples. It sickens me to hear everyone "defending the sanctity of marraige". I can see from the previous discussion that most of you would agree with me.

[chuck_starchaser]

Gayness is just a condition, like hemorroids; it's not like there's "nothing wrong" with gays, nor is there a reason for hatred. The part of the brain that does opposite gender recognition develops during fetal growth. If the growing baby is male, the mother is supposed to produce large amounts of testosterone and pump them into the placenta. Testosterone acts like a messenger that tells the construction workers to build male hardware and software. If for some reason the pregnant woman's body can't produce testosterone, or enough testosterone, at some particular time during fetal growth, you may get a baby born with some aspect of the brain being more female than male, or somewhere inbetween, depending on the amount of testosterone his mother was able to produce. One particular spot in the brain does visual opposite gender recognition. There's a particular day, during fetal growth, when that spot in the brain has to be built. No testosterone? You get the default, female circuitry, and are attracted to the sight of males. Not enough testosterone? Somwhere inbetween.
Actually, if the inability to pump testosterone into the placenta happens very early in the pregnancy, you may get a baby with mixed genitalia.

This has been well documented; I'm not exactly sure why the scientific understanding of the causes of homosexuality is not openly talked about. Homosexuality in animals happens for the same reasons. Feed a lot of estrogen to a pregnant female lab rat, and her male cubs will be gay.
And the main reason why such high numbers of women have problems producing testosterone during male baby pregnancy is excessive wheat consumption (bread, muffins, wheaties, pizza, pasta...). Wheat has estrogen. A teaspoon of wheat germ oil has as much estrogen as a birth control pill.

Ironically, estrogen is an animal hormone; wheat has no use for it, itself. You might ask, why does wheat produce estrogen? Precisely to defend itself from its predators (us among them). Excess estrogen renders females temporarily infertile, males get a lowered libido (ni fu ni fa), thus wheat is able to reduce the population of its consumers, by turning them into asexuals. Well, Hare Krishnas make these pastries full of wheat germ; you eat one of them and you won't get a hard on for a week. Old Indian recipi for sadhus having problems controlling sexual temptation...

Every plant, including the ones we consume, produce cocktails of poisons for self-defense. We've simply evolved mechanisms to neutralize most of the poisons produced by the few plants we are used to eating. Wheat is a terribly smart plant though, having come up with an actual hormone... it's an escalation from chemical to biological warfare, almost.

If a man-made drug did one per cent of the damage wheat does to us, there would be a public uproar; but wheat being "natural", nobody says anything... There's religion again rearing its ugly head: "Nature is Good, question it not. God created it for our use and nourishment. Natural is good, man-made is evil."... Every time I hear people implying that I feel like parachuting them into the thick of the Amazon jungle; let's see God's Nature in action... Not that I think ill of the rainforest, Alas!, just to point out that Nature doesn't always look like the Garden of Eden... And good luck to them finding *ANYHTING* they can eat without getting sick... if they don't run into a boa constrictor first...

Not to speak of religion sticking its stupid nose into the problem of growing numbers of homosexuals being born, and ascribing it to "the loss of family values"... Maybe if Jesus Christ had parted a head of broccoli, instead of a loaf of bread, we wouldn't be having this problem...

EDIT: Come to think of it, that whole story of Jesus parting the bread and saying "this is my body" might very well be a total fabrication. Some pagan rites included animal scrifices and people believed that their deities entered the sacrificed animals, and that, by eating the meat, they were getting parts of their deities in them. It's referred to as "theophagy". So, conceivably the church needed a rite to match tit for tat, and wheat was cheaper than animals, so they probably invented this last supper story to make up a substitute for pagan theophagy. Just a hypothesis... But then again, the Eucharist doesn't taste like meat at all, and if it did, the cannibalistic implication would be pretty tasteless...

[Halleck]

Gayness is just a condition, like hemorroids; it's not like there's "nothing wrong" with gays, nor is there a reason for hatred...
Not to speak of religion sticking its stupid nose into the problem of growing numbers of homosexuals being born...

That's my exact point though, you view homosexuality as a "problem" (as you stated directly) or a medical condition. You imply that homosexuals are abnormal.

Skin tone is determined by amounts of melanin. Do people with excess melanin have a "condition"? Is it a "problem"?

No, it's a difference. People are born this way and it's a part of who they are. I think people just need to get over it, and accept homosexuals without trying to compare them to the great meter stick of "normality". After all, what's "normal" is highly subjective and depends a lot on cultural paradigms.

And I don't think there's much evidence to suggest a "growing number of homosexuals being born". I think that a lot of the time in history, homosexuals had to live as heterosexuals due to social taboos, so a lot of it went unnoticed or undocumented until recent decades.

[chuck_starchaser]

Agreed, there's variability. I'm "straight as an arrow", and yet I've been asked by strangers or people I'd just met whether I was gay. Not sure where they got the idea, but there are many parts of the brain that are distinct between males and females, and any one of them could be malformed and cause an outwardly behaviour recognizable as cross-gender, however subtle. I do NOT agree, however that "normal" necessarily means "healthy". To use your example of melanin, "albino" is a condition (as in un-healthy), a deviation from the ideal healthy state.

Sexually reproducing animals evolved two genders, and the "healthy" condition calls for a clear distinction between the two, not the "continuum" that gay propagandists think it should be. There's no continuum between male an female, what there is malformations of the brain. Very easy to get malformations, and therefore very common, but I'm sure much less common before our overconsumption of wheat began. And hey!, organic sexual malformations at birth have been rising for the past century, so why not brain sexual malformations?

And I didn't mean "problem" as in "social problem", but more as in "pain and suffering". Contrary to the semantic roots of the term "gay", homosexuals suffer, and not just because of discrimination, but because their bodies and brains disagree. And as I said, there's no justification for hatred, anymore that there's a justification to hate albinos; but unfortunately the hatred has been there, and it is there, and it causes homosexuality, by reaction, to become something of a culture, or political movement, that it should not be, because it just further muddles the issue.

But I have to disagree if you say homosexuality is perfectly "healthy". It isn't. It's a "mistake" of nature. Evolution favored reproduction, and individuals that reproduce (heterosexually); and any genetic traits that conflicted with reproduction have naturally selected themselves out a million years ago. Male homosexuality is not "meant" to happen, even though it happens. It IS a condition, though it doesn't warrant hatred or discrimination. (Female homosexuality is a complete different story, though, but I'll leave this for another post.)

But yeah, why has there been so much hatred?

Well, straight people, speaking from personal experience, can't even fathom how a man could possibly be attracted sexually to another man. And science had been looking for an explanation for homosexuality, and for a long time could find absolutely nothing. So, explainining this unfathomable thing was up for grabs. Anyone could say whatever they wanted.

Ironically, homosexuals can't fathom straight people either. Some of them actually believe that heterosexuals are so because they are "self-repressed". One homosexual I met told me with complete conviction that straights were all "homosexuals still in the closet". That's no closer to the truth than the idea that homosexuals are so because they lack family values. And then you meet bisexuals that can't fathom gays or straights, but believe that they are both "extremes" that people go to, and that everybody is naturally bisexual but don't know it. Pure crap. But this inability of homosexuals to accept the existance, let alone the "normality" of heterosexuals is, in fact, what I think is at the root of the hatred they get. Homosexual men often believe that they could 'convert' a heterosexual, and this can lead to very bad experiencies, which can lead to hatred. Once I was living in Winnipeg, and this guy driving a van is staring at me as he drives by, and I stared back in anger, like "what you stare at me for?", and he, it turns out was a homo, and starts following me around, and after some gesturing and shouting he seems to go away, only to drive around the block and re-appear, so I finally grabbed a brick, and was going to put it through his windshield, and then he finally accelerated away and left me alone. Or like a few times at bars, trying to be respectful with a gay guy hitting on you is totally pointless, in my experience, 'cause they just won't give up until they see you finally hating them and on the verge of becoming violent.

I think a clear understanding of the facts of what causes homosexuality is what is really needed to end the cycle of hatred and misunderstandings. Male homosexuality is a birth condition that isn't curable, and isn't even "preventable", except perhaps before birth. No one who understands what causes it can possibly hate its victims. At the same time, homosexuals need to let go of all the gay pride propaganda and accept that they were born with a defect, and stop blaring "we're normal" from the rooftops; for in doing so they are going to bring a lot more hatred upon themselves.

Two wrongs don't make a right. What's needed is the light of science and understanding; not some fanatical counter-current.

[Halleck]

Albinism might be considered a condition, but what's so detrimental about being an albino except needing extra sunscreen and the funny looks you might get (and possibly jobs people might not give you)? Most people wouldn't choose to be an albino, but that's because of societal pressure, not medical problems. I feel the same way about homosexuality. The fact that somebody is gay isn't hurting anyone. I don't really see why it needs to be "cured" or "prevented". Also, a world of straight people only would be rather boring in my opinion. Diversity is what makes people interesting.

Perhaps they do go against natural/sexual selection, but so what? As a species we've been working against natural selection for quite some time now. People with bad vision, weakness, etc. don't get eaten by lions or whatever. It's not really "survival of the fittest" in the Darwinian sense for humans anymore, at least in nations like the U.S.

Come to think of it, you should be thanking gays for helping with overpopulation!

Lastly, I think your assertion about the "root of the hatred" against gays is bullshit. That's like saying that rape victims were 'asking for it'. There was hatred and ostracism towards gays long before there was enough of a community to even have the viewpoints you describe. (Unless you go all the way back to ancient greece, where casual homosexuality and even pederasty were widely accepted practices...) Perhaps you're right in that science can help illuminate the cause behind homosexuality, and hopefully quiet the folks who say that homosexuality is a 'choice'. Still, they are a community now, a whole subculutre. Maybe they wouldn't have to fight for their rights so hard if they HAD all the rights they deserve. No matter what, there's no way to consign them to some disease group and leave it at that. The culture and the identity is here to stay.

(Also, I'd like to hear your opinions on lesbianism that you hinted about. This is getting to be a very interesting discussion...)

[chuck_starchaser]

I totally agree; there's nothing more wrong with gayness than with albinism. Well, there's this book, "The Selfish Gene" I think it was titled. The author made a point to the effect that we are not "people who have genes", but rather "genes who spawn people as a way to reproduce". In that sense, our genes would have better reasons to hate gays than people do. And when religions say "man and woman should marry and produce kids", they seem to be saying to us that God loves our genes more than he/she/it/whatever loves us...

Lesbianism:
Well, there's a well known mechanism in a number of species that, when males aren't around for a long time, females start play-acting males, and "mounting" other females, and if you prevent them, they lose their fertility sooner. Apparently, females play with each other to keep themselves fertile a bit longer, while waiting for the males to show up. You could say that, in a way, female bisexuality is more "natural" than male bisexuality, at least in the sense that female bisexuality, as observed in other species, seems to be at the service of procreation, if indirectly, whereas male homosexuality, as observed in other species, is final, rather than temporary, and leads to lack of ability to reproduce.

But there's also a less "healthy" kind of lesbianism. I was mentioning that the mother to be of a male baby has to produce large amounts of testosterone and pump the stuff into the placenta. This is not true if she's pregnant with a female baby. The female gender is the "default" gender. The male gender is like a "modified" female, that needs tons of testosterone to form correctly.
Now, what happens when a woman is pregnant with twins, one male and one female?
Problem... Both twins share the same placenta...
What you get is a normal female and a gay male, or a normal male and a real lesbian. I knew one, close friend of mine. She was a sweetheart, don't get me wrong, well read, great sense of humor, but she felt like a guy, acted like a guy, sometimes we'd be walking and a nice chick passed by and she'd turn around to look at her, biting her lips... Always carried a switch blade knife for self defense, rode motorcycles, played pool and hit the balls really hard like the macho guys (she was really good at pool).

This is very rare, though, because lacking testosterone is easy to happen by malnutrition, but producing huge amounts of testosterone by mistake when being pregnant with a female baby, that's really odd; so this is mostly something that happens in the case of male and female twins, as was the case with my friend; --she had a twin brother.

[klauss]

That's like saying that rape victims were 'asking for it'.

That's an entire school of thought.
Of course, the case of random crimes is blurry, but most other victims were actually asking for it, or rather inducing them.
Like when you pester somebody... if you picked the wrong guy to mess with, he might snap and shoot you down. That you were inducing the crime doesn't justify it, but it's still true that it didn't happen by random chance.

About gayness... I'm reeeally understanding, and have had a couple gay friends. The trick is acceptance: both-way acceptance. As chuck said, we straights have a hard time getting on gay shoes, and viceversa. I tolerate gays because I don't judge people other than by their actions, so when I meet a gay, the fact that he is so is of no consequence to me. That'd stop, obviously, if he tried to hit on me and failed to get the facts straight. I can see myself actually hating such a gay, though I have to say I never found myself in that situation yet. The few times a gay hit on me, it was a rather straightforwards "I'm straight, and off he goes" case. I could easily become friends with that guy, if he recognizes his place (friend - as in not sexual).

However... I must say that in all gays I encountered, I found a concentration of all female traits I'd consider "undesirable", rather than a random mix. Can't really enumerate them, as I don't think there's a name for those traits... but just imagine everything you don't like about women, and mix it with everything you don't like about men - that is a gay. Really - all gay friendships of mine ended up abruptly because of "whimsy" behavior on their part - that's one such trait. One guy even fell in love with some other guy, but had no money to pay for the (costly) outings, so he actually stole it from me and fled before I noticed (talk about whimsy behavior...)

Every time I met a gay, I try to give the "gay community" a chance, and every time they dissapoint me. I keep giving them chances because of what I said earlier... even if I wanted to, I couldn't judge one person for what others did, so I treat this newcomer as any other - I know he'll screw up somehow, but I have to get burnt first. Maybe it's not such a desirable trait, that unjudgemental nature of mine, after all.


Oh... read on albinism. Although the problems are rather mild, they're there - albinism isn't just weird coloring.

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, if generalizations are generally bad, they reach worst when applied to gays, because there's so many kinds of them. There's the proverbial "marikas" that try to speak with a high voice pretending to themselves that they sound like women, and at the opposite end of the range you got men that are manly in every way except in who they sleep with. Then there are transvestites that merely like to dress like women but are not gay. All this has much to do with at what particular time during fetal growth their mothers' ability to produce testosterone was compromised. Different parts of the brain develop at particular exact dates during fetal growth, and inability of the mother to produce testosterone on a particular date into a pregnancy will cause one particular section of the brain to develop female rather than male circuitry. So, you could have a male baby born that has enhanced peripheral vision and a female like concern with appearance, for example, without being gay; or like myself, I've noticed, if I'm passing someone in close quarters I tend to move out of the way, not exactly like males of good etiquette that step to a side with conscious purpose, but more like females do, like squeezing around without giving it a thought; that's probably a part of my brain that didn't develop in a fully male way. All kinds of stuff are possible in terms of brain gender malformations and their visible effects, and such malformations are more common than one might think. Heck, I think I read that babies born with a mixture of male and female genitalia amount to a few per-cent of population that undergo some kind of hormonal treatment or surgery at some point. What makes gays gays is the female-like organization of the particular part of the brain that does opposite sex recognition. That is a tiny subset of all traits by which you can describe someone, and how it might combine with any other traits is a game of dice.

[chuck_starchaser]

I was just trying to think of a setting or background in which one could think of designing a new culture or commune or society. What makes it difficult is that without thinking of it as founding a nation state, one must figure how a new society could fit within an existing nation state. That gets really hairy. So, I would propose that we imagine we have some starting capital, say 100 million to 1 billion, like, enough to, say, buy a small island from an existing nation with a signed agreement from them to turn over sovereignty, so that all that is left is to petition the UN for national recognition. I don't have a part per million of 100 million to 1 billion, but this is a thought experiment, anyways, and could be part of an imaginary story or background for a novel or a game. Maybe someone else who has the money might get inspired by it and make it happen.

I'd like to try and come up with a system of government, law, constitution and economic system that avoids the pitfalls of existing systems and excells at maximizing happiness and fulfillment of its people; a constitution that is the best in spirit, clarity and thoroughness.
I think, such a constitution might begin as due recognition of the various philosophies and belief systems, like an acknowledgement that they exist, as an assurance that the concerns they express have been taken into account, but then moves forward to stating what each philosophy essentially depends on, that cannot be, or hasn't yet been demonstrated; and sets out to laying out a basic groundwork for useful assumptions and compromises we can build a system upon, while waiting for final answers from Philosophy.
You know, concepts like "equality"... what does it mean? Equal opportunity? One might ask if a small retail outlet really enjoys "equal opportunity" next to a Walmart?

Just as Law is based on an underlying Ethics, it seems to me the Knowledge branch of government (just made it up) --of which Education would be a part--, ought to be based on an underlying Epistemology.
Okay, some book I read when I was a kid, organized Philosophy into four branches that seemed to make sense to me. Logic was NOT one of them.
They were... And the question is...

Ontology --- What IS? (i.e.: "exists"; --as in an absolute sense)
Epistemology --- What do we KNOW (as well as how do we know, what IS knowledge, truth, etc...)
Ethics --- What is Good? (Right thing to do, fair, just, etc.)
Esthetics --- What is Beautiful? (Essence of beauty, coolness, etc.)

I'm not sure whether these are THE fundamental questions, but it kind of feels right to me. I think that from each fundamental question we could issue a branch of government. Not as custodians of the answers... But precisely as custodians of the questions.

I need a cigarette.

EDIT:
Perhaps each of the four questions should issue two branches: gnostic and agnostic. The agnostic branch are the custodians of the question. The gnostic branch are the custodians of the lie we choose to believe, out of necessity; but they are below the agnostic branch. So, the judicial system would be the gnostic sub-branch of the Ethics branch, whereas the Agnostic sub-branch would be more like a temple of philosophers that don't get involved in jurisprudence, unless something very hairy happens; so you could think of them as the Supreme Court, but with the accent on Supreme.

By the way, here's an idea for something that should be embedded into the Constitution: Penalty for crime should go up with "status". If a guy that was abused and orphaned and grew up in the streets robs a sandwich from a store, it makes no sense to "punish" him, does it? But if a governor or judge steals anything at all, it should result in immediate and indefinite suspension from public service. The primary method of ethical education in any society should be by example, methinks.

EDIT2:
Is there a lesson we can learn from Open Source? Could we, for example, embed into the Constitution that the Public Sector should run on the fuel of the Love of the Common Good its participants enjoy? IOW, run by volunteers?
This is a tough question, I think, because part of the justification why many people in government get very high salaries actually makes sense: If you want competent people in government, you have to take into account the fact that the private sector rewards competence with money, so the public sector has to compete with the private sector for competence in its workforce. Plus, there's the risk of attracting elements that might see opportunities to secure unlawful remunerations, as in corruption. Low paid public sector people often figure they might as well be corrupt since they are being "ripped off" by the government that employs them. On the other hand, if government were to pay NOTHING to no one, it would hardly constitute a "rip off", but rather changes the whole paradigm into that you're doing what you're doing because you want to, NOT for money; period. And if we have it as part of the Constitution that corruption while in public service is the ultimate shame, and carries the ultimate punishment, that should discourage opportunism.
Ideas? Thoughts?

[loki1950]

chuck_starchaser have you read any of Karl Polanyi interesting ideas on culture and economy cbc radio is repeating an Ideas series on Karl it airs friday at 9:00 pm http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/ he deleves into citizen happiness and satisfaction.

Enjoy the Choice

[klauss]

Chuck: directly describing the creation of what seemed such a society is the novel "Dispossessed", written by "Ursula K. Le Guin" (which I seem not to find - damn it... could I have lost that one?)

I'd say you must read it, if you want to ponder such a thing... say... for Tadpole.

[chuck_starchaser]

Karl Polanyi and Ursula K. Le Guin. Printed out. Thanks, guys; I'll see what I can find at Concordia University and at the bookstores, respectively.

[Oblivion]

Karl Polanyi and Ursula K. Le Guin. Printed out.

.. and I did suggest LeGuin's "Always Coming Home".

Oh well.

Halleck

The growing rift?

okay, the rift then. You would tend not to notice it if you're "white". Sorry for that and the other derogatory terms I used last time.

And sorry for the confederate statement. Your movies do say otherwise.

Chuck:

Should read what one says before contradicting.

Okay, I'm sorry. But that was not even the topic of the dicussion. I disagree, it is not a TRADITION. It is a marketting gimmick. Meant as an incentive for buyers to buy MORE. I'll leave that discussion to merchants.

Chuck:

Gayness is just a condition, like hemorroids; it's not like there's "nothing wrong" with gays

Male homosexuality is a birth condition that isn't curable, and isn't even "preventable", except perhaps before birth. No one who understands what causes it can possibly hate its victims.

I know people who'd kill you for that statement. It is not usually a hereditary condition or something you've been born with. Most of it is formed from childhood. Because if it is, then they'd have died out by now.

It is true however, that the original sex is female. And male is just a variation meant to encourage genetic diversity. Sexuality is just nature. Nothing sacred or holy about it. And that's also why I'd like GOd to explain why he destroyed two CITIES (Sodom and Gommorah) for that. Point off religion. But insisting that the reason for gayness is fate or treating it as a medical condition is just too blind. Most of the gay people I know (male, haven't met a confessed lesbian.. yet ) did not CHOOSE it. They'd freely admit that it would have been much nicer if they had the chance to have children, be part of the gene pool. etc. But no. And as if that knowledge is not enough, they are ostracized by the oppressively catholic people here (much worse in islamic countries). I've come to admire their silent struggle through all that, and still retaining the mask of being happy. As their namesake suggests. I know most of what science uncovered is probably true. And I know all of you ahve best intentions in mind. But I know that all there is really is acceptance. Just don't treat them as SICK people.

[chuck_starchaser]

Chuck:

Gayness is just a condition, like hemorroids; it's not like there's "nothing wrong" with gays

Male homosexuality is a birth condition that isn't curable, and isn't even "preventable", except perhaps before birth. No one who understands what causes it can possibly hate its victims.

I know people who'd kill you for that statement.

I know; which proves what, exactly?

It is not usually a hereditary condition or something you've been born with.

Again, you should read what one says before arguing. Did I ever say it was "hereditary"?
It IS something they're born with. Read my previous posts.

Most of it is formed from childhood.

False! It is formed during fetal growth, before birth. Read my previous posts.

But insisting that the reason for gayness is fate or treating it as a medical condition is just too blind. Most of the gay people I know (male, haven't met a confessed lesbian.. yet ) did not CHOOSE it. They'd freely admit that it would have been much nicer if they had the chance to have children, be part of the gene pool. etc. But no. And as if that knowledge is not enough, they are ostracized by the oppressively catholic people here (much worse in islamic countries). I've come to admire their silent struggle through all that, and still retaining the mask of being happy. As their namesake suggests. I know most of what science uncovered is probably true. And I know all of you ahve best intentions in mind. But I know that all there is really is acceptance. Just don't treat them as SICK people.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying that gays never CHOSE to be gay, which is true; but then you say "don't treat it like a medical condition". Are you suggesting that people generally suffer medical conditions by choice?

(BTW, I was careful to call gayness a "condition" rather than a "medical condition", as the latter might suggest that it could be treated or cured by medics, which isn't the case.)

[klauss]

Try to read Ursula K. LeGuin's Alway Coming Home. That was an "ideal" society. Survivors of the collapse of civilization. The points of view there are fascinating. It's a really good book. Opens your eyes to other ways of thinking things.

Huh... I seem to have missed that... funny.

[chuck_starchaser]

For some unknown reason, I'd totally missed it too.

[Oblivion]

Huh... I seem to have missed that... funny.

For some unknown reason, I'd totally missed it too.

probably coz it's not highlightd? or the alway is missing an S. lol

Oblivion wrote:
Chuck:

Gayness is just a condition, like hemorroids; it's not like there's "nothing wrong" with gays

Male homosexuality is a birth condition that isn't curable, and isn't even "preventable", except perhaps before birth. No one who understands what causes it can possibly hate its victims.

I know people who'd kill you for that statement.

I know; which proves what, exactly?

joking, man. Revise that to "beat you senseless with high-heels".

chuck:

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You're saying that gays never CHOSE to be gay, which is true; but then you say "don't treat it like a medical condition". Are you suggesting that people generally suffer medical conditions by choice?

I know it's a medical condition. Psychosexual to be exact. Just don't treat them as if something is wrong with them. Don't delve into science to find excuses for treating them differently. For example, (i know this for a fact) treat the "marikas", the gays who want to be women as WOMEN. It may sound slightly odd to you, but it is how they want to be treated. If you're chivalrous with girl friends (i.e. open car doors, etc.), do it with them too. If you're straight, just make it clear, they'll have no problems with that.

For the "brokeback mountain" gays. Don't alienate them. They're still men in every sense except for a lack of libido around women.

And again, don't treat them as if they've got issues that they SHOULD take care of. Because it can't be taken care of. BTW stating that it should not be treated as a medical condition and stating that they did not choose it is NOT contradictory. If gayness IS a condition, then you could call maleness and femaleness (straight i mean) a condition too. And frankly, treating it that way is mildly offensive.

False! It is formed during fetal growth, before birth. Read my previous posts.

I did. and it's not. Do you really think sexuality is formed by balance between estrogen and testosterone? No. I know Freud had a lot of mistakes, but sexuality was his strong point (to the point of attributing all human traits to sexual origins. lol). Sexuality is formed in early childhood. I mean preference (read: attraction) NOT physical sexual dimorphism. If what you said in the previous posts were true, then why are true (which is rare) human hermaphrodites not gay, when they obviously had had an excess of both hormones?

Take for example, our sexual fetishes (and we all have them, don't deny it. ) Some attain greater satisfaction in sex if they're partner wears a specific dress, says a specific dialogue, etc. How about foot/shoe fetishes? Food fetishes. Fetishes for the natural body smell ( ). etc. Those are sexual conditions. AND they are not formed at birth.

Gays tend to come form families with an absent, overly dominant, or submissive father/mother figure. How could you explain that? Some became gays because of influence in early childhood. That could come from having dominantly female playmates, from sexual explorations with a person of the same sex in childhood, or (God forbid) from molestation. Those are the main reasons why people become homosexuals as they grow. And those reasons also apply for your fetishes, and even your preference for the kind of woman/man you find attractive.

I tend to gravitate toward the blank slate theory of babies. They are blank slates. And childhood is the stage where they can be most molded into what they will be as adults. Treat your children well, and you will reap the rewards.

Anyway, discussing homosexuality like this is not really a good thing. Just acceptance, i stress that again. Don't analyze, just accept. For that reason i'd like to see brokeback mountain. lol. I haven't seen that yet. A good movie that illustrates the point is a recent one : "The family stone". One of their siblings is deaf and gay. His partner's african-american. But the way the family accepts him is great (he has 2 straight brothers. forgot the other one. the other's luke wilson). I know it's just a movie, but it's a good movie.

[chuck_starchaser]

I know it's a medical condition. Psychosexual to be exact. Just don't treat them as if something is wrong with them. Don't delve into science to find excuses for treating them differently.

What makes you think I treat gays differently? Just because you're scientifically ignorant and want to remain so, you figure might as well attack me personally with false accusations and/or to turn this discussion into a personal advice hotline?

For example, (i know this for a fact) treat the "marikas", the gays who want to be women as WOMEN. It may sound slightly odd to you, but it is how they want to be treated. If you're chivalrous with girl friends (i.e. open car doors, etc.), do it with them too. If you're straight, just make it clear, they'll have no problems with that.

And in fact I treat everyone by whatever gender they want to be treated as; did I, at any point, ask you for advice?

For the "brokeback mountain" gays. Don't alienate them. They're still men in every sense except for a lack of libido around women.

I know; exactly what I said in an earlier post; and yet again, did I ask for advice?

And again, don't treat them as if they've got issues that they SHOULD take care of. Because it can't be taken care of.

Did I say it CAN be taken care of? I thought I said like ten times that male homosexuality is a birth condition that is untreatable and incurable.

BTW stating that it should not be treated as a medical condition and stating that they did not choose it is NOT contradictory. If gayness IS a condition, then you could call maleness and femaleness (straight i mean) a condition too. And frankly, treating it that way is mildly offensive.

I don't care what offends who. I just condensed what is known to science about it. If the truth offends anyone, that's their problem. By the way, notice that at first you said "I know it's a medical condition." and now you say "BTW stating that it should not be treated as a medical condition..."; but I'm sure you're gonna say you're not contradicting yourself... Or maybe you're saying that its being a 'condition' is true, but that truth should take second place to politics...
Heterosexuality is NOT a condition, simply because that's what our biology intended. Lack of testosterone in the placenta during growth of a male fetus is UN-inteded, and may be caused by various anomalous factors, such as lack of some nutrients needed for the production of testosterone by the mother to be, excessive estrogen, and/or some other medical conditions of the mother, during pregnancy.
Take the case of osteoporosis (weakening of the bones). It is caused primarily by lack of calcium in people's diets. It IS a "condition", even though people with osteoporosis outnumber people with healthy bones. Why is it a "condition"? Because it's not our biology's intended state, even if it happens to be terribly common. Similarly, lack of sufficient testosterone production by the mother, during fetal development of male babies, leading to incorrect development of brain structures, is NOT a naturally intended biological paradigm.

False! It is formed during fetal growth, before birth. Read my previous posts.

I did. and it's not. Do you really think sexuality is formed by balance between estrogen and testosterone? No. I know Freud had a lot of mistakes, but sexuality was his strong point (to the point of attributing all human traits to sexual origins. lol). Sexuality is formed in early childhood. I mean preference (read: attraction) NOT physical sexual dimorphism. If what you said in the previous posts were true, then why are true (which is rare) human hermaphrodites not gay, when they obviously had had an excess of both hormones?
Take for example, our sexual fetishes (and we all have them, don't deny it. ) Some attain greater satisfaction in sex if they're partner wears a specific dress, says a specific dialogue, etc. How about foot/shoe fetishes? Food fetishes. Fetishes for the natural body smell ( ). etc. Those are sexual conditions. AND they are not formed at birth.

You're almost right about sexual fetishes. In fact, they are not even formed in childhood, but at the time of transition to adulthood. Whatever impressions of the opposite sex you get around that time, become your fetish. Mini-skirts for me; platform shoes; hold the nylons. You're wrong about homosexuality. Male homesexuality is caused by lack of testosterone production *by the mother* during pregnancy. All attempts to connect homosexuality to childhood environment or experiences in studies have failed. No correlation was ever found. If you want to believe your lies, go ahead; it doesn't change the reality one iota. And I'm getting sick and tired of your twisting everything I say and putting words in my mouth all the time, by the way. Like when you write "Do you really think sexuality is formed by balance between estrogen and testosterone?". When did I say that? When scientists began looking into into homosexuality the first thing they looked into were hormonal imbalances and found nothing at all that correlated. Now, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, or you're going to regret it. I said "lack of testosterone DURING PREGNANCY". Do you understan human language? Lack of testosterone IN THE PLACENTA, when the fetus' brain is developing the general structures. This is not a religious belief; it's confirmed. You can produce homosexual male animals in the lab by inhibiting the pregnant famale's abitity to produce testosterone. Freud my ass! The guy was a good writer, but just about nothing he said was ever confirmed scientifically. If poking holes into Freud's crap isn't a national sport it's because it's too easy. No brain structures were ever found mapping to his 'id', 'ego' and 'superego'; and his theories about sexuality were hilarious. Read about his dream interpretation techniques. Every fruit in the grocery store had an associated sexual organ, not to speak of 'penis envy'; nothing but crap; they guy was writing out of his ass. Seemed to have a conviction that anything that popped in his head was automatically true.

If what you said in the previous posts were true, then why are true (which is rare) human hermaphrodites not gay, when they obviously had had an excess of both hormones?

Because they are NOT rare: Hermaphrodite births requiring hormonal treatment and/or surgery happen in staggering numbers. The cause is well known as well: Hormonal imbalances in the placenta, during fetal development of the sexual organs, results in hermaphroditism; hormonal imbalances in the placenta, during fetal development of the brain structures results in any part of the brain that is developing at the time, to develop morphologically with the wrong gender, resulting in various possible cross gender behaviors or sensitivities. Homosexuality is one of those possible outcomes, namely when the structures of the brain that do "opposite gender recognition" are developing, in the fetus, and right then the mother is unable to provide proper hormonal balance in the placenta, for the growing baby. It all depends on ***at what TIME*** during fetal development the lack of testosterone happens. Different parts of the brain develop at different times; and the sexual organs differentiate at yet another time during fetal growth. But I don't know why I'm wasting my time typing, when, in my experience, you just ignore everything I DO say, and then insinuate I said things I DIDN'T say...

The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development.

http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html

Check this out too:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_prnat.html

Also,

Testosterone however, does not act directly on the genomes of target tissues. Rather, fetal androgens must converted into dihydrotestosterone and into estradiol by an enzyme referred to as aromatase. Aromatase enables fetal androgens to bind to estrogen as well as to testosterone receptors (McCarthy 1994), whereas dihydrotestosterone acts selectively on testosterone receptors. Again, females are protected in this regard by the secretion of alpha-fetoprotein (Raynaud, Mercier-Bodard & Balieu 1971). However, if for any reason these fetal androgens fail to become converted, or if they are prevented from acting on target neural tissue, the female pattern of sexual differentiation will ensue. Although genetically male, the individual may be born with a "homosexual" brain.

http://brainmind.com/AbnormalBrainDevelopment.html

And this:
http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/psy311/reprobeh.pdf

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.

EDIT:

In addition, it is necessary to separate brain settings for sex orientation from brain settings for sex-typical behaviour. It is possible, for example, to have an individual who is macho both in body and personality but who prefers male sex partners, or vice versa. This is because the masculinization/feminization effects occur in different parts of the brain and, more importantly, at different times during pre-natal development.

http://www.heretical.com/wilson/hbrain.html

The research team of Vom Saal, Grant, McMullen and Laves ( 10 ) offers another potential cause whose basis is also rooted in prenatal hormones. Fetal female rats were seen to have higher levels of testosterone if they had been situated between two male embryos in utero . The reception of testosterone from adjacent brothers was enough "to alter (a female rat's) behavioral phenotype"( 10 ). According to Edward Miller ( 11 ), the same occurs in humans: women who had male twins (and were therefore exposed to testosterone in utero ) exhibited slightly more masculine characteristics than did women who had not been exposed to testosterone before birth.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... dian2.html

As well,
Homosexual rams hint at origin of sex preferences


BTW, I've ordered The Great Transformation, by Karl Polanyi, and
Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin. They should arrive in about two weeks, they told me.

[Halleck]

To backtrack for a moment...

I talked to my grandfather yesterday, and this is what he had to say about vitamin C (or at least what I can recall):
In oranges, the vitamin C is active because the atoms are held in double bonds. However in tablet form, it's common for the double bonds to deteriorate. Deteriorated vitamin C has no effect, it needs double instead of single bonds to be "active".
So, while it's possible to get non-deteriorated vitamin C from tablets, you're guaranteed to get it from oranges.

Also, he cautioned against the benefits of pasteurized orange juice. He said that the intense heat from pasteurization can also deteriorate the double bonds.

Any error in this explanation is my own. I had a rough time in chemistry.

[chuck_starchaser]

I did pretty badly in chemistry too, if it makes you feel better.

Any chance you could get a reference from your grand-dad. I'm usually pretty good at googling up stuff, but nothing seems to be showing up on this double-bond issue. Closest thing is here (scroll down half way, where it says 'chemistry'):
http://www.answers.com/topic/ascorbic-acid
but it makes no mention of a relation between double-bonds and potency.
(That was searching for "Vitamin C double bonds".)

Searching for "Vitamin C potency" I find an issue about L and D isomers. The L isomer is useful; the D isomer is useless but harmless. Some vitamin C supplements apparently have a small amount of D-isomer mixed in.

Here it says

Note that vitamin C is stable when dry, but in solution it deteriorates as it is exposed to oxygen.

http://www.chemheritage.org/educational ... taminc.htm
which sounds like the total opposite of it deteriorating in tablet form.
Here also it says

Vitamin C deteriorates rapidly in WATER and in LIGHT

http://cavyspirit.com/care.htm

The only mentions I can find of vitamin C deteriorating with time is in solution: namely, packaged fruit juices, and skin care products.

Could it be that your grand-dad fell victim to drug companies' propaganda? (There's been a lot of that, over the years.)

[Oblivion]

....

An Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind.

A Tooth for a Tooth makes you both have silly smiles.

.. or get a certain dentist richer.

I hold no grudges, never have. So I apologize. No ifs, buts, or ors.

Hope that's enough.