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.

Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Pego » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:21 am

The thread was locked, because some posters used sexist language (or so I understand). I'll attempt to answer the questions posted in straight fashion. As some questions are provocative and sarcastic, some answers might venture into those regions as well.

1. Would white people hate OJ as much if he'd been accused of killing his first wife...who was black?

I don't "hate" OJ. I still laugh at Naked Gun movies. And the answer is "yes", it would not matter to me, if the murdered people were green or orange.

2. Why are 70% of black children born out of wedlock? Have black women ever heard of marriage?

Women? What about those fathers? They don't share equal responsibility?

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

What bothers me a lot more is all those English speakers on this message board that are unable to produce one coherent sentence.

4. Why do white males always deny that any issue of alleged discrimination exists...unless its reverse?

Some do, some don't. I don't. I also see discrimination against all sorts of people, based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation...

5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.

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?

Not discriminating against the homosexuals and allowing them their chosen lifestyle is no skin off the heterosexual noses, nor does it equate "support". There is plenty procreation in this world, as you have pointed out above. That the homosexuals threaten the "family structure" is one of the most absurd, unsupportable statements out there.

7. Why do so many black men not have anything to do with the children they sire?

Just as #2. Irresponsible? You tell me.

8. Why do black men leave the house in do- rags?

No clue.

9. If you get a tattoo to be set apart or be an individual...arent you really just being like everyone else who has one? Isnt the only way you're special and set apart is if you dont get one? Isnt there only one you?

I have never comrehended needs for tattoos either.

10. If you get type II diabetes...isnt that self inflicted?

Some are, some are not. Just like hypertension and ruined knees.

11. Do white people feel that blacks will one day try and return the favor?

I won't engage in a vitriolic race wars debate.

12. When white people get really fat they will be an outcast in their family and community... even to the point of suicide. If black people get really fat their family still loves them.

Total nonsense.

13. Why do black people wash their cars so much? Why do white people leave theirs dirty?

Total nonsense #2.

14. Why are black people mocked for liking chicken and watermelon? Are asian people criticized for eating sushi?

I like chicken and watermelon, I don't like sushi. What does that make me?

15. Why can hispanic people name their kids Jose and Maria...white folks name their kids Tyler and Samantha...but black people be crucified because they didnt?

Total nonsense #3.

15. Why is it illegal to harm an unborn eagle (egg), but legal to abort an unborn child?

Two completely separate questions. We can debate needs for conservation in nature, we can debate reproductive rights of women.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby TrackDaddy » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:14 am

Pretty good effort Pego.

I would've preferred that you answer all the questions, though, since none are nonsense as you labeled them.

For example...you are far more likely to be ostrasized culturally if you are a white person who is overweight than if you are a black or hispanic person who's overweight. Maybe because of that, white people are proportionately less likely to be overweight? I'm not sure.

The reason I know and you dont? Because most black people who attain any measure of success must negotiate two cultures: the dominant culture and their own. White people in general don't have to bother learning anything about black people beyond what they see on TV. Black people dont control anything. But all minorities hoping to meld into society and gain a measure of acceptance and success must learn to manage at least two. Therefore I can tell you from a lifelong experience that black people who are fat dont suffer the same degree of cultural rejection that white people who are fat do.

Black people have traditionally been criticized and mocked for liking chicken and watermelon while other cultures suffer no such stereotypical condemnation for what they like to eat. You answered the question as though your personal approach speaks to the general issue and it doesnt.

The point of the abortion question was to show that for whatever reason the life of a bird is considered more precious than human life. Period. And its sad.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:42 am

TrackDaddy wrote: the life of a bird is considered more precious than human life. Period. And its sad.

I know I'm going to be really, really sorry, I'm writing this, but . . . some would argue that an abortion doesn't end a 'human life'. It ends the possibility of one, precisely the way contraception does. I personally am not FOR abortion, but I AM for a woman's right to self-determination.

This is not an invitation to debate what a 'human life' is, becuase that is, of course, the crux of the matter. An early miscarriage is also the 'death' of a person, yet there are very few funerals for that. That a basic rite (sic) we do for all we care about, why not in this case?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby gh » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:58 am

TrackDaddy wrote:.....
Black people have traditionally been criticized and mocked for liking chicken and watermelon while other cultures suffer no such stereotypical condemnation for what they like to eat. ...


You've never heard of "beaners" or "rice boys"?

(old Lee Trevino joke: you know why us Mexicans don't do BBQ? The beans fall through the grill")
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:09 am

Pego wrote:5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.


inordinate lust IMHO.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:26 am

gh wrote:
TrackDaddy wrote:.....
Black people have traditionally been criticized and mocked for liking chicken and watermelon while other cultures suffer no such stereotypical condemnation for what they like to eat. ...


You've never heard of "beaners" or "rice boys"?

(old Lee Trevino joke: you know why us Mexicans don't do BBQ? The beans fall through the grill")


...and krauts :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:28 am

TrackDaddy wrote:Black people have traditionally been criticized and mocked for liking chicken and watermelon while other cultures suffer no such stereotypical condemnation for what they like to eat.

Lutefisk, anyone?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:42 am

Limeys.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby gh » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:43 am

gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:42 am

Dutra wrote:
Pego wrote:5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.


inordinate lust IMHO.


Well, I suppose you can call a sexual orientation 'lust', but what's inordinate about being gay?
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby gh » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:47 am

now wanting to fuck sheep, that's inordinate!
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby gm » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:50 am

gh wrote:now wanting to fuck sheep, that's inordinate!


Bestiaphobe. Don't you know they are born that way? It's not a choice!
gm
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby bad hammy » Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:56 am

gm wrote:
gh wrote:now wanting to fuck sheep, that's inordinate!


Bestiaphobe. Don't you know they are born that way? It's not a choice!

The sheep??
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:18 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:
Pego wrote:5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.


inordinate lust IMHO.


Well, I suppose you can call a sexual orientation 'lust', but what's inordinate about being gay?


I think a man attracted to another man or a woman attracted to another woman is an extension of all tendencies within the sexual realm. If that doesn't fall under "lust" then so be it. In other words, it's a further extension on a sexual fetish.

The sexual fetish is what drives the sexual orientation.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:34 am

Dutra wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:
Pego wrote:5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.


inordinate lust IMHO.


Well, I suppose you can call a sexual orientation 'lust', but what's inordinate about being gay?


I think a man attracted to another man or a woman attracted to another woman is an extension of all tendencies within the sexual realm. If that doesn't fall under "lust" then so be it. In other words, it's a further extension on a sexual fetish.

The sexual fetish is what drives the sexual orientation.


So assuming you're a straight male, presumably you have a fetish for women?
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby cullman » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:57 am

gh wrote:now wanting to fuck sheep, that's inordinate!

Are you besmirching the reputation of the Scots?

cman :o
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:02 pm

Dutra wrote:The sexual fetish is what drives the sexual orientation.

Your idea of what constitutes a fetish and my idea of fetish are not even remotely similar! :shock:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:34 pm

I guess we can't delete posts.
Last edited by Dutra on Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:35 pm

I'm blank on purpose.
Last edited by Dutra on Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:37 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:
AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:
Pego wrote:5. Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

Neither. It is sexual orientation of complex and varied causes.


inordinate lust IMHO.


Well, I suppose you can call a sexual orientation 'lust', but what's inordinate about being gay?


I think a man attracted to another man or a woman attracted to another woman is an extension of all tendencies within the sexual realm. If that doesn't fall under "lust" then so be it. In other words, it's a further extension on a sexual fetish.

The sexual fetish is what drives the sexual orientation.


So assuming you're a straight male, presumably you have a fetish for women?


I guess it depends on how far you think the definition of a fetish goes. The desire to copulate with another male may come from the same place that the desire for someone to engage in BDSM for instance.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:07 pm

Dutra wrote:The desire to copulate with another male may come from the same place that the desire for someone to engage in BDSM for instance.

Or, just as easily, not.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:07 pm

To be honest, homosexuality as an identity is a Victorian invention. Before that it was purely the act of buggery or sodomy. If you were convicted of it it didn't mean you had an identity, except probably as a pervert! Even in late Victorian times Bosie Douglas married a woman after the Oscar Wilde affair and regained some respectability. It was just a sexual act - a forbidden one, but just an act nonetheless.

Homosexuality, or at least bisexuality, happens quite often in nature. Seals, stags, allsorts of animals that compete with others for females have been known to copulate with other males, although this generally only happens when there are no females available and it's to blow off some steam!

Some birds, like the recent stories of gay penguins pairing off as mates and stealing eggs in order to raise chicks together. Some of our nearest animal cousins, the Bonobo chimpanzees appear to be bisexual, with sex between pairs of males and pairs of females very common and it appears to be a bonding mechanism and a way of establishing hierarchy within a group, although same-sex couples don't seem to pair for life.

It's very unclear what role it may play in procreation - it may be a way of providing additional non-competitive carers for offspring. It may be a cultural thing, similar to the Bonobos. Who knows?

But same-sex couplings and relationships have been around for as long as humans have so there must be some reason for it.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 04, 2009 3:21 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:But same-sex couplings and relationships have been around for as long as humans have so there must be some reason for it.

I'm sure SOMEone will excoriate me for this statement (or, someone like Daisy will say I'm just flat-out wrong!), but I believe homosexuality is a naturally occurring 'crossed-wire' like dyslexia or color-blindness. It's not right or wrong; it just is. There are examples of 'nurtured' homosexuality (as occurred in ancient Greece), but today, in America, it's hardly ever a choice at all (IMO!).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby gh » Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:57 pm

color blindness is 100% genetic; homosexuality obviously isn't because there are scientifically documented incidences of gay/straight twins as far as I know. That doesn't add any weight to the "choice" side of things those, because I understand there are multiple in-the-womb issues that apparently come into play.

Long and short of it is that my take would be—admittedly painting with a somewhat wide brush—if you care about the science side of things you don't think it's a matter of choice; if you base such judgment on what your religion tells you, it is.

Science and religion aren't remotely incompatible, but too many people on the religious side try to make it so.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby TrackDaddy » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:38 pm

I love the enchange of dialogue in this thread.

Sensitive issue, intelligible responses.
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:47 pm

Marlow wrote:
Dutra wrote:The desire to copulate with another male may come from the same place that the desire for someone to engage in BDSM for instance.

Or, just as easily, not.


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.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:16 pm

Dutra wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Dutra wrote:The desire to copulate with another male may come from the same place that the desire for someone to engage in BDSM for instance.

Or, just as easily, not.


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.


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.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Dutra » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:30 pm

AthleticsInBritain wrote:
Dutra wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Dutra wrote:The desire to copulate with another male may come from the same place that the desire for someone to engage in BDSM for instance.

Or, just as easily, not.


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.


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.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:13 pm

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. If a pair of identical twins are not both of the same 'persuasion', then I attribute that to the differences that twins really do have (i.e., as they age, people can tell them apart). I don't see homosexuality as a 'birth defect', but I do see it as an anomaly. According to figures I've seen (who knows how accurate they are?!), up to 10% of the population has homosexuality 'tendencies' (again, I'm not sure what that means), and maybe 5% actually have that tendency strongly enough to act upon it, in or out of the closet. The whole thing is actually kind of fascinating, as are most all of human behavior patterns!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Medal » Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:59 pm

Would white people hate OJ as much if he'd been accused of killing his first wife...who was black?

I do not think that the crime would have garnered as much national attention or hatred towards OJ on a national scale. There are some whites and black that would have been outraged over the murder of his black wife. But black on black crime just doesnt make prime time news.

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.

Why do we accomodate the hispanic people who wont learn english?

Theres so many spanish speakers in the U.S. I dont exactly think theres is a actual effort to accomodate them...it just happens. I think ppl in the U.S. should try to learn more than one language, thats a seperate topic though.

Why do white males always deny that any issue of alleged discrimination exists...unless its reverse?

I do see this, but not all white males are like this. Ive met some that deny everything, and some that are understanding of others situations.

Since being gay isnt a gender...isnt it just an inordinate lust?

By the failed logic suggested in this question, anything that is not a gender can be said to be an inordinate lust. Wrong! Sexual orientation and gender are two different things. Being gay is being gay, having an inordinate lust is haveing an inordinate lust. Both gays and straights are capable of haveing inordinate lust.

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?

Natural is what occures in nature, there is no prescribed order that you suggest. Homosexual practices have been observed in thousands of species in nature. Homosexuality is not the norm, but it is natural. "Familial infrastructure" is a social costruct that will be undermined by anything in the culture not described as part of the infrastructure. so thats pretty much irrelevant. 5-10% of the people choosing not to procreate will not have an adverse affects to the human species that is already overpopulating the earth.


Why do so many black men not have anything to do with the children they sire?

Children take the backburner to other issues like money, education, and crime that are afflicting the black male community at high rates.

Why do black men leave the house in do- rags?

personal preference. Why do _____ leave the house in baseball caps?

If you get a tattoo to be set apart or be an individual...arent you really just being like everyone else who has one? Isnt the only way you're special and set apart is if you dont get one? Isnt there only one you?

Arguement could be applied to both groups who set out to be different by either getting one or choosing not to get one. Whatever you decide, millions of others have made that same decision.

If you get type II diabetes...isnt that self inflicted?

I wouldnt neccesarily call it self inflicted, there a several contributing factors. Generally it can be traced to lifestyle. But so what, that doesnt mean any less care or attention should be aforded to individuals copeing with TII diabeltes.


When white people get really fat they will be an outcast in their family and community... even to the point of suicide. If black people get really fat their family still loves them.

I do think weight is less of an issue in the black community than in the white commuity imo.


Why do black people wash their cars so much? Why do white people leave theirs dirty?

I havent really been seeing anybody wash their car alot, white or black.

Why are black people mocked for liking chicken and watermelon? Are asian people criticized for eating sushi?

I do see asians mocked over some of their foods, not sushi so much.

Why can hispanic people name their kids Jose and Maria...white folks name their kids Tyler and Samantha...but black people be crucified because they didnt?

American norms and expectations. I believe since hispanics have a language like spanish attached to their identity, then spanish names are more acceptable. Whereas african americans only have english attached to the modern day identiy, therefore a name like Lakeisha is less acceptable since it strays more from american english and names then say samantha.

Why is it illegal to harm an unborn eagle (egg), but legal to abort an unborn
child?

What? It is not illegal to harm an unborn egg. Im guessing you meant egg cell. Scientist do research all the time that sometimes results in the harming of the egg cell. [/i]
Medal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 7:23 pm

Postby EPelle » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:24 am

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?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:15 am

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

Would you rather have a modestly intelligent* -- yet english-illiterate -- group of people make good choices by use of those legal means possible or to have this group of people remain clueless and set back for an undetermined period of time? If they are set back, does the cost of accomodating them with language-based literature outweigh the costs of social welfare - the logical step taken for folks who are left behind with no means to cover the necessary costs of their lives?

Would not they be more productive as members of society if they were provided similar conditions (the ability to make rational decisions without the limitations placed on a person who doesn't understand a language) upon which to make determinations and add value with the skills their brains and hands are able to provide?

Insofar as accomodation is concerned for people who don't speak a language, I do believe there could be a better effort made by those who are meant to be reached to be less dependent on special consideration than what is currently in place. There are groups of people not just in the USA, but here as well who are not hispanic who tend to group together and remain outside of the mainstream where people interact in a given language. They miss out on daily transactions which could lead to a lesser dependency on the reliance on others for support.

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?

* (based on no studies, simply for the sake of argument; we have thousands of cases here of immigrants who were something special in their home countries before arriving here to drive taxis; clip locks of hair; work as kebab bakers; and more)
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:22 am

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.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby gh » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:00 am

<<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.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Answers to TrackDaddy's Politically incorrect.

Postby Marlow » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:29 am

AthleticsInBritain wrote: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.

However if you reduce heterosexuality 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.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

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: 21126
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!

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests