Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Daisy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:54 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:color blindness is 100% genetic; homosexuality obviously isn't

I'll use the word 'genetics' as in - determined at birth by the genome - and say it is genetic. .......The whole thing is actually kind of fascinating, as are most all of human behavior patterns!

Remember that this is not specific to humans.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:57 am

Daisy wrote:Remember that this is not specific to humans.

Well, we all know that flowers are gay!!! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Daisy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:01 am

Marlow wrote:
Daisy wrote:Remember that this is not specific to humans.

Well, we all know that flowers are gay!!! :twisted:

I meant other animals but since you mention it, most flowers are bisexual. Is that they same as gay?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:25 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:My sister is in a same sex marriage and I presented this theory to her and her mate one time a number of years ago. Initially both were taken aback. After a while I think they understood what I meant.

AthleticsInBritain wrote:I understand what you mean, but speaking from experience, I think for those people who are 100% gay it's something a bit more fundamental than a fetish.


Explain what you mean.


I'm surprised your sister didn't tell you. I see fetish as a sexual obsession, to the point almost that orgasm can't be achieved without the fetish object being present/involved.

However if you reduce homosexuality to a purely sexual act you miss out the human component. In a relationship, love is involved. You're relating to another person romantically and not to a sexual object, or a person that's been objectified. I'm sure you can appreciate the two are quite different things.


I think love and lust are more intertwined than you and a lot of other people suggest. If that's objectifying relationships then so be it.

Also...we're getting too hung up on the word "fetish" because it has a lot of negative connotations.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:18 am

<<3. Why do we accomodate the hispanic people who wont learn english? >>

Thus has it always been with immigration (legal or not).... complaints of refusing to learn the language, and of course by the next generation everybody speaks perfect English (and as Pego noted earlier, frequently better than the natives). Did you know there was a time not much more than a hundred years ago when Milwaukee had more German speakers and German newspapers than English?

If today you find, on a percentage basis, more Hispanics whose English is lacking than most other migrants that's chalked up to the fact that anyone migrating here from Europe (or China, Japan, Korea) learned English before they got on the boat.

Central Americans are far less likely to had English opportunities. Indeed, given how many are "peasants" (not meant in a pejorative sense), there's probably a fairly high rate of illiteracy in their native Spanish.

But any Hispanic who moves northward does it for one reason: economic opportunity, and if there's an unwritten law on the streets it's that the more English you speak the more money you make. And these guys are all about working hard. Never seen anything like it.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:27 am

gh wrote:But any Hispanic who moves northward does it for one reason: economic opportunity, and if there's an unwritten law on the streets it's that the more English you speak the more money you make. And these guys are all about working hard. Never seen anything like it.

Nail hit on nose.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Medal » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:29 pm

EPelle wrote:
Medal wrote:Why are 70% of black children born out of wedlock? Have black women ever heard of marriage?

I dont think marraige is seen as such a strong cultural norm amongst black youth...imo. Due to the requrements in the welfare system that affects lower income people. Thats not to say that this is something bad though. Generaly I think marriage is becoming less relevant amongst all american youths today.

This is not a black-specific issue or one which has to do with a specific culture. Many Swedes, many thousands of kilometres away, are also unmarried, living together and having children "out of wedlock". On average, we have 39.000 marriages a year registered in this country. Men are getting married at age 34,5 whilst women are marrying at 31,9. Many folks are chosing to live together as registered partners.

Marriage is not seen as the first choice between a great percentage of men and women in love, and doesn't automatically become evident when those two people create a family - whether by plan or by accident.

What makes the difference between a white Swedish woman and a black American one on paper?


On paper there is no difference between a black american and a swedish citizen. I figured the question asked by TD was meant to compare african american marriage rates to other groups marriage rates within the U.S. I didnt think it was posed as an international question.

Yes in Europe marriage are occureing less and less. I believe in france people choose the civil union option 3:1 compared to marriage. I do think at this point though, marriage is seen as less essential to U.S. blacks compared to other U.S. groups. I also think the u.s. is starting to move away from marriages, like how you mentioned choosing a domestic partenerships instead or choosing to cohabitate.

I agree with you that marriage is not a race specific issue. But I disagree with you in that I do believe marriage is a cultural specific issue. Western europe has a different culutual perception than americans do. That explains why they choose other alternatives to marriage at higher rates then most u.s. citizens today.
Medal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 7:23 pm

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:20 pm

Medal wrote:Medal addressed TrackDaddy's Politically Incorrect Questions above.


Great job, Medal!

Obviously I didnt completely agree, but then that was never the objective.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:23 pm

gh wrote:<<3. Why do we accomodate the hispanic people who wont learn english? >>

Thus has it always been with immigration (legal or not).... complaints of refusing to learn the language, and of course by the next generation everybody speaks perfect English (and as Pego noted earlier, frequently better than the natives). Did you know there was a time not much more than a hundred years ago when Milwaukee had more German speakers and German newspapers than English?

If today you find, on a percentage basis, more Hispanics whose English is lacking than most other migrants that's chalked up to the fact that anyone migrating here from Europe (or China, Japan, Korea) learned English before they got on the boat.

Central Americans are far less likely to had English opportunities. Indeed, given how many are "peasants" (not meant in a pejorative sense), there's probably a fairly high rate of illiteracy in their native Spanish.

But any Hispanic who moves northward does it for one reason: economic opportunity, and if there's an unwritten law on the streets it's that the more English you speak the more money you make. And these guys are all about working hard. Never seen anything like it.


I learned a lot of things I dint know from this post.

Thanks.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:30 pm

EPelle wrote:Finally, to answer the question frankly and with all due respect, who is anyone in the USA to suggest that another group should not be granted such language-based consideration when the USA has no officially recognised national language in the first place?


That would be me. 8-)

In some ways accomodating people who refuse to learn the language weakens our infrastructure, makes us less efficient and more vulnerable.

To everything.

Clear, concise communication is very important.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby TrackDaddy » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:52 pm

gh wrote:<<6. Doesn't being gay stand against the natural order of things to procreate? And therefore opposes the sustenance of the familial infrastructure of mankind and consequently the species? Is it rational to support that? >>

I'm a raging heterosexual (as is my wife). Neither of us have the slightest inclination towards procreation, as much as we enjoy practicing. Sorry, we don't have the breeder gene. I guess that means you wouldn't "support" us.

Conversely, we have gay friends with a raging desire for children. And gays, just like heteros, practice adoption, surrogate parenthood, in vitro fertilzation, you name it.

Gays are hardly opposed to procreation; they just don't like to do the same way you do. Ostracizing them for that is no different than so doing for race, color or creed.


If gays are not opposed to procreation they have a funny way of showing it.

The ONLY way to do it (procreate) is the way I do it (male/female).

Gay is not a gender, race, a color or a creed. By their own description its a sexual "preference" which CLEARLY indicates CHOICE. Maybe heterosexuality isnt their preference, but then that is their choice.

It's a an inordinate lust because its less common. Unlike heterosexuality it has no other benefit than gratification of a deviant (not derogatry, but meaning against the norm) nature.

Like pedophilia or bestiality...its not given to majority inclination.

Also, just because someone is inclined to do something doesnt mean that its a good idea.

Like gossiping, overeating, lying, or an attraction to children. Whether you feel you are born that way or not...is that an excuse to give in to those desires?

If so, why cant we (victims aside) be more understanding and compassionate toward pedophiles, for example? I mean they cant help it right? They were born that way like gay people....Right? Why do we expect them to control their desires if we say that it cant be done? Arent they victims of an inherent desire? Arent people who like to sleep with animals in the same boat?

Much like necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality....homosexuality has no social or procreative benefit beyond deviant gratification and therefore should categorized with them.

It should not be categorized or compared with heterosexuality, which obviously has other innate benefits that support the sustenance of the species.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby gh » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:10 pm

Sorry to hear your mind is still in the dark ages.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:12 pm

If one more ignorant fucker compares gays to paedophiles one more time I swear I'm going to go postal. How dare you compare me to something like that??

Trackdaddy, get it into your thick head that IT. IS. NOT. A. CHOICE!!! You think I would CHOOSE to be something that attracts this kind of bullshit day in day out????

Whether you feel you are born that way or not...is that an excuse to give in to those desires?


So consenting adults are supposed to stay celibate our whole lives, even though what we do doesn't harm anyone or anything except your delicate intolerant sensibilities? I don't think so.

I'm ending this rant now to save my blood pressure.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby STL_Runner » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:20 pm

TrackDaddy wrote:If so, why cant we (victims aside) be more understanding and compassionate toward pedophiles, for example? I mean they cant help it right? They were born that way like gay people....Right? Why do we expect them to control their desires if we say that it cant be done? Arent they victims of an inherent desire? Arent people who like to sleep with animals in the same boat?

Much like necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality....homosexuality has no social or procreative benefit beyond deviant gratification and therefore should categorized with them.

It should not be categorized or compared with heterosexuality, which obviously has other innate benefits that support the sustenance of the species.


Pedophiles have VICTIMS, chicken-screwers have VICTIMS. Who are the VICTIMS in a homosexual relationship?
STL_Runner
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:30 pm

I have a couple of questions for TrackDaddy. Just one question, really, the other one is an observation.

If, as you claim, homosexuality is a choice, that means we all could choose it, right? So, would you blow a guy. No? I thought so.

You have made a few insightful observations about history of discrimination against African-Americans. Yet, you seem to have no problem arguing for discrimination of immigrants that are not English speakers, or homosexuals in this debate. Don't even try an argument that it is not the same. Discrimination is discrimination.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:52 pm

TrackDaddy wrote:It's a an inordinate lust
it has no other benefit [than] gratification of a deviant nature.
Like pedophilia or bestiality - gossiping, overeating, lying, or an attraction to children. . . . necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality.

That about sums it up! I'm convinced! :roll:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby STL_Runner » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:52 pm

Pego wrote:If, as you claim, homosexuality is a choice, that means we all could choose it, right? So, would you blow a guy. No? I thought so.


I've got a pretty good memory, yet I can't remember the exact date I CHOSE to be a heterosexual. None of my gay friends seem to be able to remember the day they CHOSE to be a homosexual either.
STL_Runner
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Seeksreal » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:13 pm

TrackDaddy, you should not make absolute statements about issues you don't understand. Being gay is NOT a sexual preference. It is a sexual orientation. Nor is it a fetish! It doesn't stem from the same part of the psyche as fetishes do. I can speak with authority on this subject as both a gay man and a documentary filmmaker who has made one of the most in-depth documentary features on BDSM/kink/fetish in the past decade. I personally get offended when my sexual orientation is being reduced to a "preference" by ignorant straight people. If you are not gay, you can't understand it fully!! It is as much a part of me as my race or gender. I'm sure most black people feel that a white person can't understand what it is like to be black because they haven't had that experience. The same holds true for sexual orientation.
Seeksreal
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:31 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest