“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491369 Feb 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may ask, what do you mean when you say you were "on the path to" homosexuality?
Possibly, like most people at some point in their life, he had a "crush" on someone of the same sex.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491370 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>Europe, where sex is a lot more liberal homo-, bi-, hetero-... holding even.
40% Aids transmission through hetero and 39% Aids transmissiion through homo.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm
Thank you Qu! You're backing up my point about HIV traveling along the lines of discrimination.

There you go - well done! You see what I mean? Our societies (almost all human societies) set up unequal access to scarce resources (health, money, food, sex). Those with the least access are the most at risk for health issues - they get taken advantage of by those with access (African: men with money, women without), while being unable to afford or have the power to use the technologies that would protect them (condoms).

So HIV and TB and so on spread through these groups, highlighting where our inequalities lie. That's what HIV is - an indicator light that the affected population is living under unfair, structurally violent conditions.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#491371 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
WOW
So you when you said they would try to coerce children within a family what you really meant what the total opposite and would engage in an adult consensual relationship once the child reached adulthood?!
LOL
So it went from coercing children to have sex which is rape to a consensual adult relationship!
It is unbelievable the games you guys play
I find it difficult to fathom the way in which you can completely misconstrue written words that I provided for you, in detail, that show I did not say what you claimed I did, and then you still continue on with the same type of accusation, changed in context a bit, but still completely in error and misrepresenting what I said, when it was explained, and pointed out, referenced with links to the posts made and clearly showing you were in error in what you claimed I said.

I rarely use the word "believe", personally, in my day in and day out life, but you have forced me to say:

I cannot believe that this person is so set on wanting another persons words to say what he wants, he'll continue on in the same way even after being shown to be wrong in the assumptions made, and act as if it's myself being the disingenuous one here.

I don't believe it. <<<(Mark that down, my friends)

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491372 Feb 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If he was trying to make everything good, he didn't do very good work then, did he?
What makes you say that the good in the world is from the god, and the bad from man. It could just as easily be the other way around. How could you tell if it were?
Interesting postulate.

However, Christianity has two main Gods, the Evil One currently having the greater power and intelligence.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#491373 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
EDIT scaritual
I take it back, you did say "once they reach adulthood"
Thanks for the.. apology?

I gather you took the time to read what I did say and not gallop off with what you thought I said or wanted me to have said. I'm not sure which it might be at this point.

You know all it takes is a little bit of effort to look at what was said and then reason the import of what I did say or mean. You needn't go off on some tangent that is completely off mark and then run with whatever dreaded and/or feared imaginary situation you've got brewing in that noggin.

You really can't blame me for being frustrated and somewhat irate with this exchange so far.
Skombolis wrote:
What is your logic on that.
I think you should carefully consider and read what a person responds to you with, and don't place your personal spin upon what was said. Think about it. I mentioned nothing about rape, pedophilia, gays, etc.. and yet you mentioned all of those topics and didn't notice I specified >>"once they reach adulthood"<<, and >>consenting adults<<.

You know you could have mentioned ALL of those concerns, and mentioned that I did specify "consenting adults" as the defining principle or line of demarcation, but you didn't.

WHOOPS!....Look at what I just did, I took your thought and went off in a direction that you meant to apply to the question below, but I added my own spin.

Lets look at the question below.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#491374 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
So you are saying they would rape children
Back to the same thing, huh? Just read whatever you like into what I said, and ignore what I did say.

No, I didn't mention raping children.

First of all, I did not say "they would" be coerced or pressured. That may seem to be a minor point to you, but my actual words were there "might be the possibility" of coercion or undue pressure.

I can't say that would certainly happen or not happen, however, that is the motivation behind some of the laws, but not all, and in looking at the laws, almost all cite the increased likely hood of some bottle necking of genetic disorders within a familial group as being a concern. I notice many laws are somewhat religiously motivated in some instances too.

Yet the bible had multiple examples in the myth in which is was accepted and condoned, and other instances where it was taboo.

This is an issue that is very complex, since in reality, if consenting adults make a conscious and deliberate or self-aware decision to engage in an incestuous relationship, and there is no chance of birth defects arising from offspring produced from that union, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to.

<<<< But then there is the issue of coercion,>>>> and while you take that to mean a forcible rape or some similar scenario, my thoughts don't run to that extreme, but more along the lines of acceptance of a request or plea, by a family member, that even as an *adult only* encounter(not pressured as a child), another adult might succumb to that familial pressure to accept a suggestion.

The example I can provide, not at all the same, but similar, is when a crime has been committed by a family member, and in any other instance you would turn a stranger in.

But, you don't because it's a brother, a sister, or a parent etc...

That really isn't a good example, because it associates criminal activity with incest, and based upon what you've read into what you thought I said but didn't, I feel compelled to be as descriptive as I can be in explaining my thought process to you in this instance and on this subject.

So, indulge the length of this reply.

I could also use as an example where your family member asks to borrow money and you lend it to them, all the while knowing you shouldn't for whatever reason but you do.

Or you're approached with a business venture that you know cannot succeed, but, because it's a relative, you try to honor the blood ties of family and going that extra distance - because in some families - if a family member asks, you are almost expected, or there is an onus upon you to agree >>> just because <<< "it's family".

I happen to be from Appalachia, and there is a very strong family code/honor/system of placing a family members requests or needs at an almost unquestioned priority, above your own needs, at times.

A request by a member of the family is one of the most sacred things there are within this culture, and it's the same for many people, not just Appalachia.

I also should point out that blood lines and relatives are very delineated here, and that is done to eliminate the possibility of incest, and that has been done >>> in the past<<< because of relatively small populations = genetic stock diversity - within a region.

Where I grew up there were only 10,000 people, total, in my entire county. It's changed now.

The most common questions asked of a teen when the stage of dating began were; "What's her family name? Is she from over in this area? Is her Grandpa this branch of *Smiths*, or the *Smiths* on the east end of the county?

"I reckon it's okay.... As long as shes not *Tom Smiths* daughter, he married that Jones girl and she was kin to your great Uncle Leo and......"

It was a very detailed process, and once it was determined you were not related or even closely related, all was fine.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#491375 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
they would instead pressure children as they were kids to make them more likely to have sex as adults?
I mentioned that possibility, for both children and adults. I didn't say it was a certainty or exclusive to either a child or an adult, and the considerations that might come into play. I covered that extensively, above.
Skombolis wrote:
What scientific basis do you have for saying that?
A scientific basis? Actually there is some info, not entirely confirmed, that points to there NOT being a possibility of that happening, but only in a narrow range of circumstance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermark_effec... The flip side of that is if it's outside of that narrow range, it appears as if there is no scientific reason that prevents incest, inherently.

Except for...

There is the genetic factor, that can be a consideration, and that is a consideration, especially so if incest becomes a "family tradition", or commonly practiced within a family.

An accumulated propensity for genetic defects can be a concern involving incest and offspring resulting from that arrangement. That is supported scientifically, but it isn't as dire as it may seem. Even though if a child was born with a genetic defect, solely because of an incestuous relationship and for no other reason, that'd...suck, no?

That has happened, too.
Skombolis wrote:
Granted it is a little different than raping them as children but not a whole lot better if you are saying they will indoctrinate them to the point that they will give into it upon reaching a legal age. To me that is really no different than rape
I addressed that, above, and I think I made a pretty good case that family ties can compel people to do or accept things they might not normally accept, and it doesn't require rape or "force" to accept those situations.

I'm not sure it would even require "indoctrination" as a prerequisite to consider entering into an incestuous relationship, and that relationship might not be something one person involved would choose, if not for the others insistence or plea.

Can what was just pointed out be called indoctrination? I'm not sure it can be.

Humans form strong ties, we make friends, and those friends can be like family. Family ties tend to be the strongest, and they ARE family, and sometimes a family member can be a best friend too. Complicated, and emotionally charged and motivated at times.

I could envision many scenarios in which you might entertain the concept of incest, and as long as you freely and without coercion or pressure chose to do so, I don't personally see it as a problem.

At the same time, I think it may be best to err on the side caution in preventing those coerced situations. Being an adult and making that decision freely and without pressure makes all the difference, in my opinion.

Ensuring that is the circumstance(freely chosen) is the problem, I think.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491376 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a socioeconomic problem, complicated by stigma and hatred. That is exactly what we see in Africa, and to a lesser degree right here in the US. Until these problems are addressed, we will not overcome these deterrents to society.
At least we need to investigate such matters instead of using them as arguements for stereotyping an entire minority group.

I think it is humerously ironic how some men get a "bug up their ass" over homosexuality.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#491377 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
I am still admitting my error as I didn't see the part that said "once they reach adulthood", I just said they would "coerce children"
Yeah, and that was an error on your part. You needn't mention it anymore, unless you continue to misstate what I say or write, and I'll eventually not engage you. If that is your ultimate goal, just go ahead and state that, plainly.

The interaction will change.
Skombolis wrote:
But do you think people who are gay do that?
I don't think there would be an increased propensity or inclination for either a homosexual person, or a heterosexual person to coerce children into a incestuous relationship. I think the odds would be exactly even as far as an intended or methodical desire or approach is concerned.

I think you're looking to demonize a specific group here, and making the unfounded conceptual leap to the conclusion that people of the same sex would be more likely to engage in incest, and that that somehow attaches a more serious or sinister component to incest.
Skombolis wrote:
Find someone underage that is gay and indoctrinate them and coerce them so once they reach legal age they will engage in homosexual sex with them?
The way your question is phrased is not coherent. It exhibits a misunderstanding of many concepts being discussed within this conversation.
Skombolis wrote:
You are arguing semantics in my opinion.
I've found that many times, the semantics of a situation or discussion is where the actual solution or enlightenment can be found.

Except for the most simplistic of issues, blanket statements and grand proclamations and stances are generally futile and end up producing divisions, contributes very-little-to-no-understandin g or awareness of a topic, and does not benefit society or the individuals within a society at all.
Skombolis wrote:
I do apologize for implying you were had been dishonest although my questions remain the same.
I wasn't being dishonest. My response remains much the same, too, just much more detailed in explanation.

I feel I must be very descriptive in order to avoid what happened with you before. The issue was with you and not grasping what was plainly said.
Skombolis wrote:
Do you think people who are gay indoctrinate underage gay youth?
hahaa, lemme see....

Do I think.

A gay person.

Could indoctrinate.

A gay youth?

What? To be "more gay"?

Surely you don't mean that, that would be ridiculous.(I could go off on an unrelated assumption and act as if that's what you meant, like you did with my comments, but I was clear in my statements, you, not so much, just read the question as you stated it)

Or to engage in an incestuous relationship more so than a straight person? You meant that, yes?

No, I don't, and here's why; The percentages of heterosexuals and homosexual people within the population is much lower for homosexual people, proportionately.

I have to think that an incestuous relationship would be more likely to occur between heterosexuals and initiated more often by heterosexuals, just because of that lower percentage of homosexuals, proportionately, in the population.

As I said earlier, if you have reputable information that can dispute that or evidences otherwise and in specific, please provide that.

I hope I've represented this subject as evenly and fairly as I can, even though it is only my personal views, after all.

Forgive the voluminous post(S).

I felt it was needed.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491378 Feb 20, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> It is a known fact that multiple blood transfusions develops antibodies which create the symptoms of immune deficiency(although it is not classified as HIV).
True, HIV is only one of several auto-immune diseases.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491379 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
@ G, speaking of which... like HFY had stated initially that men are twice as likely to give HIV/AIDS to women rather than women giving it to men... of that 12,875:
4,416 hetero- males compared to 8,459 of hetero- females who got infected. "Twice as likely" in this case also.
What is being left out of here is the amount of sexual activity and if bi-sexual. Obviously, it is passed on to women at a quicker rate. I believe the jump from homo- to hetero- "initially" came through an intermediary.. bisexuals ... and that is how heteros- got infected and started to infect each other. Even though hetero's are infected and a majority in the U.S. are heteros-, it's amazing that it is still mainly in the lgbtq community here in the U.S.
Yeah, you're right about women.

I'm not convinced you're correct about where HIV began or how it spread into both sexes. That's more of a discussion about the origin of HIV - Africa, very likely colonial mining conditions. There's a bit of dispute about the origins of HIV, some suggest poorly structured vaccinations, but I'm convinced of the colonial mining conditions for a number of reasons.

In either case, it would most likely have begun in straight men, spread through their sexual networks and eventually got into men who have sex with me. You see, all scenarios for the origin of HIV have it spreading through needle use, not sex. Once it gets into the human population, sex drives it.

Let's pretend that Western concepts of sexuality are universal to African peoples for a moment. If you give vaccinations to your laborers, you're going to be overwhelmingly giving them to straight men, who then infect their dependent women. Eventually some of them will also have sex with men who are gay or just more flexible about who they sleep with. Then it travels up the socio-economic ladder in the wealthy-nation's people who sleep with the locals.

Importantly, the Western sexual construct of gay/straight is not universal, so my above picture is oversimplified. Where the lines between same and opposite sex are blurred (or not noticed), the virus spreads between the sexes faster.

HIV could not have begun as a "gay disease." It began as a disease of extremely poor working conditions plus a reliance on cheap vaccinations for inexpensively keeping workers working. It becomes a "gay disease" under certain social contexts and discrimination against homosexuals - but, as you've been browsing the literature, the medical watch-dogs have altered their language to a neutral position "sex between men" rather than "homosexual sex" because they recognize that blaming an identity doesn't actually help identify how HIV spreads.

If you "know" HIV as a gay disease, you're going to miss where "straight" people have sex with the same sex, engage in drug use, discrimination against women, and so on, allowing HIV to continue spreading. When you remove your value judgments, focus on behavior and inequalities, you can actually track the movement of HIV (as you cease restricting your vision).

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491380 Feb 20, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't ignore Hiding's posts.
In fact, you should read them at least twice.
You might just learn something.
Just a head's up.
He's right though - I need to stop being mean. For one thing, mean people suck!

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491381 Feb 20, 2013
Counter_Strike wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a smart man, but at times when things are boring he may try to get under your skin alittle bit. Most of the times he means no harm, but he will challenge you to think outside the box. Of course, like the rest of us, he also has his flaws and I'm sure they get the best of him too. I sense you will both move past teh misunderstandings and the ugliness....
Exactly.

Hate me or Love me, you will be forced to think if you engage me. I picked up the habit from this Jew I read about. <smile>

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491382 Feb 20, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it possible that Le_Le gets along with me better than several of her fellow Christians?
What do you care how she interprets her book? It's poetry, trope, allegory, parable, myth, and metaphor. No two of you agree completely about what it means. You're looking at verbal ink blots and discussing them like they were high resolution photographs.
I think you just answered your own question. <smile>

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491384 Feb 20, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think few can argue against him you are welcome to place him on whatever pedestal you like. Of course people defend him with things like maybe he forgot he said he believes its possible creator gods exist so you will have to pardon me if I am not impressed. The man is a liar, pure and simple
Tell ya what Hiding, put your own credibility to the test and tell me you think the person who wrote this doesn't think all or most Christians are indoctrinated
IANS said
"It seems that way to you because you have been trained to think that way, a characteristically Christian way of thinking. You see the world principally as a decadent and dangerous place that is getting worse, even as it gets better. And you project your own Christian psychology of sitting by helplessly waiting to be rescued. It's so negative, passive and disabling.
I blame your church for teaching you to think this way."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
If you can say that with a straight face then that is very sad. It is bizarre what I have seen people do in the attempts to circle the wagons. I am hoping my respect in you was not misplaced and maybe I will get lucky and you simply won't answer or do like Tide did and say I don't know. Its not the best way to approach it but its something. How low are you willing to stoop? I hope not very. My experience with you would say you wouldn't but I have been wrong before
I can't really answer for IANS. I don't know if he thinks you're indoctrinated or what, but he's right. Your religion trained you to think the way you do - that's a bit of an oversimplification, though. There's a lot more than simply your religion beating your religion into you. In America, Christianity is backed up at almost every turn - it's in your TV dramas, on your news, in your politics, in your morality. American culture is a Christian culture, and there's no getting away from that.

When you first started exploring Christianity, there was a learning period. If you began from a young age, my guess would be that your parents taught you how to pray, how God is watching over you, etc. When you entered church later, as an adult, your conceptions of prayer, spiritual experience, praise, etc., were focused and refined through the social.

Christian faiths are slightly different from one another - they have slightly different ways of behaving, receiving the Holy Spirit, and so on. Some speak in tongues, some sing, chant, play with snakes, and on and on. How your particular version of Christianity works, I don't know, but because it values some behaviors over others, there is necessarily learning going on - but usually not in an obvious way.

Yes, some church groups hold learning groups, how to get spiritual growth through Jesus, etc., but most people probably don't attend many of these. The learning is more subtle - you watch people perform religious activity and you refine your behavior unconsciously towards theirs. Not perfectly, of course, since your bodily experiences differ and I would guess that each person shifts their behavioral performance to reach spirituality in their own way.

So...yes, Christianity has shaped you. I can't argue with that.

Second, you didn't show where IANS is lying. You just claimed he is a liar. What part of him is lying in the paragraph above?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491385 Feb 20, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>1. True to an extent. I was a believer in Siddharta Gautama, until I started to question the atheistic beliefs of Buddhism and then it was not enough, there a huge void.....
So your belief is predicated on your own desires, not reality.

What if Siddhartha was correct ?
That would mean you created a fantasy world to feed your own selfish desires.

Interestign. You didn't understand what Buddha taught at all. That explains your current misunderstanding of Judaism. You are a perfect Christian.

Now, when the time comes, and it will, that Christianity leaves a void what will you do ?

I suggest learning to play a muscial instrument.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491386 Feb 20, 2013
Qu_innocence wrote:
<quoted text>I just saw this... case in point regarding my last post regarding gay blacks.
Oh no, Qu! We're converging on the same conclusion! HIV isn't a gay disease, but a human one.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#491387 Feb 20, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Wow! My mistake.
Any Christians care to comment on whether they believe in Unicorns or dragons?
The Dragon, who is the Devil, or Satan, was bound to the Abyss for a thousand years, but now he is free to deceive nations, and gather forces, which will be as numerous as the grains of sand on the beach, and will bring forth a Dark Army, which may or may not include a unicorn cavalry. And there will be merchandising. Amen.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#491388 Feb 20, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
hello hidingyourmaleunitfromus - how ya been?;)
'been a long time, Waaaassssuuup. I hope you and your family are doing well.

I've been good, bad, miserable, joyous, and everything in between.

And yourself?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#491389 Feb 20, 2013
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text>The worst?.........and why is that pray tell?
I thought it was cute.

G'eng Lawest!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min Stilgar Fifrawi 749,828
Los Angeles Sober Coach: 7 Day Rehab - In Home ... 4 min The Addictions Coach 1
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Insults Are Easier 229,857
Oldest Language in India : Telugu or Sanskrit ?? (Feb '12) 16 min Divin Rakesh 184
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 16 min hojo 548,234
Your Body Deserves More - Dubai Massage Service 33 min AsianStarMassage 1
Biggest Fraud Ever Perpetrated On American PPL 56 min Publc Enemy Num 1 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr who 261,600
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 10 hr nikki 124

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE