being GAY.

[smallmovesal]

*gasps*

you're right! damn, i do have small breasts! wow, thanks - now i can sleep at night.

warik has a superiority complex that he needs to address. it's as simple as that.

 

[Citruscide]

Whatever Warik said... Thumbs up

C

 

[buddy28]

Johny Juice, now ur on my shit list

Kidding.

I agree. I do think alot of gay men share similar social behavours. But sterotyping all gay males as meeting some subjective standard of gayness, regardless if they meet the criteria or not, hurts both parties involved. It hurts the gay community because it perpetuates the social gay sterotype, which inhibits gays successfull integration in society. And secondly, it hurts the person whose sterotpying others by encouraging a cognitive behavour that generalizes and demeans anothers character, instead of choosing to understand and empathise with the individual.

 

[bAsSbUmP]

johnny: please speak for yourself and not for all of us italians; we are not greaseballs!!!!!! heheh

peace

 

[wyst]

Oh, I don't have a problem with people saying what they think, but Warik seems to just say what he thinks will piss people off for his jollies, which he pretty much admitted to. He tends to try and think of something that will make the thread explode like an atom bomb and then takes the "what are you all so irritated about?" pose that he's not very good at. And it's extremely counterproductive in someone who is supposed to be a moderator. Look at Warlobo, the women's board mod; he has some very strong opinions, but he's miles above starting fights for his own amusement.

As I've pointed out to Warik on other occasions, it does matter how you present your opinions. If you present things in nasty nutcase light, don't be all surprised and pointlessly smug when people treat you like one. I just thought I wouldn't have to experience that irritating technique again once I got out of high school. Just because after you purposely piss people off you act all calm doesn't mean you aren't the instigator. That's just a typical (and not particularly clever) passive-aggressive tactic.

I shouldn't let it yank my chain so bad, though. To me it's clear that that's his ulterior motive in most of his posts, yanking chains.

My problem with his post is yes, queenie guys, often gay, but gay guys not often queenie. I am bi, and have lived in and out of the gay culture for years, and most gay men aren't queenie. The average gay kid who's in the closet often is afraid to come out of the closet for just the reason that people with very little real experience like warik perpetuate the stereotype that gay men are like that. Some are most aren't and both are fine. But imagine feeling attracted to men but also being a more traditionally masculine guy and knowing that if you come out of the closet society will instinctively see you as a queen? That's the harm of the stereotype that warik delights in perpetuating.

Some sterotypes are more insidious and hurtful than others, in my opinion. How would the big guys among you feel about feel about these two: "all men with deep voices are stupid," or "muscley guys are rapists," are those harmless stereotypes? I don't think so. Don't assume that the stereotyping you experienced is exactly the same as that experienced by gays. I'm not saying it wasn't hurtful; it may have been. It was for me at times.

The thing is you can eventually move on feel more secure in your italianism, and me in japanism (I can't figure out the real words here, I'm tired) because despite the stereotyping, we don't have the same stigmas attached to our races as gays do. The catholic church doesn't condemn italians or japanese, nor does the moral majority inveigh against us, etc. We are openly japanese and italian, and have japanese and italian parents and aunts and uncles and all that. (Unless we're orphans. I'm not.) And we have support from families. And we can see other people of our races if not on tv than at least on the streets. I can't hide my eyes, skin or hair. But gay teens have the whole teen angst shit the rest of us go through without the visble role models, most of them. They often have no one o confide in, or confess to (yeah, what would the church say to them, if they were catholic?) Yes everyone goes through this identity shit. Life is hard for everyone. But gay kids do tend to be even more alone.

I made this point, earlier in the thread, but I guess Warik didn't bother to read it. I really doubt he could refute it in its substance. He is more likely to pick at the edges and ignore the substance. That's his usual tactic in his "logical" arguements.

That's why people jump all over his ass. Not because of his opinions. Hell, I disagree with 90% of curling's opinions, but he's one of my favorite posters on here, because he's got a good sense of humor and argues like a gentleman.

Wyst

 

[wyst]

Oh yeah, and stay off smalls' titties!



Wyst

 

[ion]

The additional psychological burden is real , so are Warik's balls, so to speak. Another good thread.

 

[musclebrains]

I wish people could leave feelings out of arguments and try to discuss the issues themselves. -Warik

You say that and then here, for one example of many, is the content of your argument, the one you claim is free of feelings:

"I honestly don't care as long as I don't have to be subjected to witnessing any acts of homosexuality or flagrant displays of flaming gayness (i.e. tight pink shirts with limp wrists and a nasty liTHHHHHP), but I wish you'd stop crying about it. Wahhh homosexuals are stereotyped! How many times do I have to say it? "

So, there is the constant, predictable fact that you hardly ever have any insight into your own style and appear to be a person who thinks questioning himself would be weakness. (I could also mention the "feelings-free" use of an enormous font --not analagous to screaming, eh?)

Even your content is inevitably self-contradictory in the larger picture. You stereotype gay men and then claim nobody should stereotype you -- that it's a "personal insult" when it's directed to you. (Whereas I should not feel insulted by your stereotypes.) You claim you don't care about homosexuality -- unless it's demonstrated "flagrantly," yet you have no hesitation (a) in demonstrating your flagrant negative generalizations in this respect and (b) in flagrantly posting a thread about the facts of your own sexual orientation. You think you are driven by logic, which inflates your sense of yourself as a smart guy, but in fact you are frequently driven by the need to rationalize taste and prejudice.

I couldn't care less what you think about gay men. You're a mean-spirited kid with no power. I don't go into the AS forum and start telling people how to use drugs because I don't know that much about them. You, Warik, have very limited experience in the world but have no hesitation in bursting into a thread and using it as vehicle to state your inane tastes and embarassingly illogical claims.

One example of the latter is the purely dumb assertion that if a majority of AIDS patients are gay in this country, it's reasonable to stereotype gay men as either infected or promiscuous. What a nitwit reversal of logic. You might stereotype AIDS patients as gay but not the reverse. (Construct yourself a handy little analogy using heterosexuality and herpes, then conflate the two.) These kinds of perversions of logic are so common in your posts that one needs infinite time to address them. I am guessing this is what your teacher encountered in your infamous paper on gun control.

Ten years ago, when I was doing activist work in the AIDS community and often encountering people like you, my mentor told me to stop bothering to argue -- that every moment I wasted on people like you could be spent with someone suffering because nobody was loving them.

This thread was about what it's like to be without love, to be so hated and in such despair that you cannot find your way to a solution more attractive than suicide. Yes, Warik, suicide is often "illogical," but your repeated failures to account for the power of the irrational, like your own "illogical" following your girlfriend to a party you didn't want to go to, always undermine your arguments -- or at least that's the consequence of the repellent hubris with which you meet the nearly universal observation of your self contradictions.

Find a teacher you admire, go sit with them and listen, instead of running your mouth.

 

[musclebrains]

And secondly, it hurts the person whose sterotpying others by encouraging a cognitive behavour that generalizes and demeans anothers character, instead of choosing to understand and empathise with the individual.

Very true in my experience, Buddy. In encounter groups I've run, there often arrives the moment when the stereotyper realizes that he has been blind to the other in his individuality. In connecting to the "real" person, there's always a flash of grief on realizing that you've denied yourself connection of depth to people on a trivial difference.

 

[needleboy]

In the last year, I learned that a close friend of mine, Tom, from high school committed suicide because he was gay. Since he and I had not spoken since high school, I never knew that he had come to this realization.

I've been told that he killed himself because his family is very conservative & he didn't see how he could ever reconcile their religious, moral beliefs with his own sexuality. Also, he had no other gay people around him to confide in, leaving him incredibly isolated. Further, he was also an only child. Tom was 27.

I've been pretty tough on myself the last year over this issue, and have really been exploring the issue of what is so different from gay men and straight men? Are gays more self-destructive because of a sense of isolation, a sense of never being able to live up to family expectations......do many gay men just simply self-destruct? Are gays often vengeful towards one another because of jealousy or insecurity when in reality, they are the only ones who can probably truly understand one another?

In short, do people realize what gays must often live with? The stereotype of having AIDS. The stereotype of being sexually promiscous. The stereotype of doing drugs every weekend. Moreover, being disowned because of the one thing you can never change------YOUR SEXUALITY-----just like your eye color, there...it will always be.



RyanH,

I had a similar experience with a riend from HS who killed himself! It really sucks, I wish I had been in contact with him, so he would have a better support net, but I was not.To this day I regret that!

Howver stereo types has a bsis in reality. I have had close ties to the gay community most likely longer than you have been "out" I began bouncing at a gay nightclub for extra money when I was 17, they had a mixed cxollege night, and some of the frat guys got out of line sometimes! I have also run gay nightclubs in several cities.

It is possible that I have more gay friends than you, as 90% of my fiance's friends are gay.


Understanding this here are the facts, which we have discussed at length!:

1) Gay men are more promiscuous. This has mostly to do with the fact that women on the whole are harder to get into bed than men, gay or str8. A study done in the mid to late 80's of gay men in San Francisco, and tha Avg number of partners was 450! That had been declining mastly due to fear of AIDS, but this trend has been reversing itslef for the last 5-8 years with the new drug protocols making AIDS seem more manageable!

2) AIDS. Man this really bohers me, but sadly the gay population is largely infected with this virus. Of my friends (which are gay) 80% of the are HIV +. While the CDC puts the figure at around 30-35%, that is only including people who get tested! We both know that there are alot more out there, who are sick and know it, but refuse to get tested, because they wish to deny that they are sick. While the CDC's numbers are low, it is a static figure. But I would say that the chances of a gay man contracting HIV during his life are closer to 80-90%. What scares me is that not only is promiscuity on the rise, instances of safe sex are going down.l

3) Gay guys do alot of drugs! Deny it all you want, but I spent YEARS running gay clubs.


Just for the record AIDS is NOT a gay disease, but it is linked to lifestyle! Sorry, it's just a fact!

Str8 people who live promiscuous lifestyles are at greater risk as well!

 

[musclebrains]

My problem with his post is yes, queenie guys, often gay, but gay guys not often queenie. I am bi, and have lived in and out of the gay culture for years, and most gay men aren't queenie. The average gay kid who's in the closet often is afraid to come out of the closet for just the reason that people with very little real experience like warik perpetuate the stereotype that gay men are like that. Some are most aren't and both are fine. But imagine feeling attracted to men but also being a more traditionally masculine guy and knowing that if you come out of the closet society will instinctively see you as a queen? That's the harm of the stereotype that warik delights in perpetuating.

I agree with this, Wyst, but I also think an argument against heterosexist posturing can't rely on dissing a very real type within the gay community. Gay men themselves have cruelly marginalized effeminate men just to placate the kind of prejudice that Warik embodies in an effort to represent themselves as better candidates for assimilation.

I have seen countless gay kids in my office whose main complaint is that they don't feel "masculine enough."

It's the interesting obsession of gender and gay and lesbian studies to make an inquiry into the construction, not only of sexual orientation, but of gender itself as a collection of "performative gestures" imposed by the culture. Effeminacy did not become strongly associated with homosexuality until the American psychoanalytical community stereotyped the "sissy" as an incipient homosexual (only one of Freud's multiple explanations). So, it is fair to question how much effeminacy became constellated as a way for gay men to identify themselves to one another -- and for the culture to identify and marginalize homosexuals.

The Mattachine Society, one of the early gay movements, actually proceeded on this basis and required members to "masculinize" themselves. (Some would call this a "normalization" of gender.) Women's organizations similarly required members to "feminize" themselves. Any gay person, unless he is extremely identified with the markers of the other gender, can tell you how easy it is to reform one's appearance and manner. I would say that this play with gender is one of the things many people enjoy about being gay.

But the question for me, as a psychologist, is always whether to "teach" an effeminate boy or masculine woman to engage in this play, which they often consider a compromise.

 

[musclebrains]

Howver stereo types has a bsis in reality. I have had close ties to the gay community most likely longer than you have been "out" I began bouncing at a gay nightclub for extra money when I was 17, they had a mixed cxollege night, and some of the frat guys got out of line sometimes! I have also run gay nightclubs in several cities.

I assume you know that the vast majority of gay men are not club kids and that you are generalizing, accurately I think, about a limited set of people.

 

[needleboy]

I assume you know that the vast majority of gay men are not club kids and that you are generalizing, accurately I think, about a limited set of people.

Nope, not talking about club kids, they are just looking for acceptance, while at the same time tryinfg to find out who they truly are.

I am talking about guys 24-45! This was the largest part of our crowd, and we hads to keep security in the bathroom because of the drugs. I am 32 and most of my friends are 27-45, and they party alot!

PS- and they are Dr.s, lawyers, pharmacists, etc Definately not club kids!

 

[musclebrains]

Nope, not talking about club kids, they are just looking for acceptance, while at the same time tryinfg to find out who they truly are.

I am talking about guys 24-45! This was the largest part of our crowd, and we hads to keep security in the bathroom because of the drugs. I am 32 and most of my friends are 27-45, and they party alot!

PS- and they are Dr.s, lawyers, pharmacists, etc Definately not club kids!

I wasn't clear. You are talking about people you meet inside a bar -- "club kids" of all ages. That is a very limited slice of gay life on which to make generalizations about the entire community. You can only generalize about the set of people you were having contact with. This just a simple principle of statistical sampling.

 

[needleboy]

Musclebrains,

I see what you are saying as far as the drug use, but still stand by my statements!

It is form 15 years of experiences that I can make them. My friends and I talk about it all the time. Some of them ae calming down now, after 1 overdosed on crack and went into rehab(court mandated), and another was caught for money laundering and went to jail they finally said enough was enough on the drugs! As far as promiscuity, most guys I know are in relationships, but they are very 'OPEN" relationships!

 

[RyanH]

I agree with this, Wyst, but I also think an argument against heterosexist posturing can't rely on dissing a very real type within the gay community. Gay men themselves have cruelly marginalized effeminate men just to placate the kind of prejudice that Warik embodies in an effort to represent themselves as better candidates for assimilation.

That's right. As we have discussed before, some gay men have not only marginalized themselves but they have also over-compensated in an effort to become more masculine....i.e. the Jeep Wrangler, the military gear, etc. Many young gays often choose a runway "model/actor" with a perfect body as an inspiration as opposed to Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams (although I'm not so sure Mr. Capote is a positive role model, LOL). Some of these gay men feel that the only way to assimilate is being like someone else as opposed to bringing your own set of unique circumstances to the table. But then that seems to be a problem with straight people as well.

Don't you feel that part of the problem is a severe lack of role models, or maybe the role models are there; they are just overshadowed by the glamour/entertainment industry? I'm not sure as these are very complex, multi-faceted problems.

 

[needleboy]

That's right. As we have discussed before, some gay men have not only marginalized themselves but they have also over-compensated in an effort to become more masculine....i.e. the Jeep Wrangler, the military gear, etc. Many young gays often choose a runway "model/actor" with a perfect body as an inspiration as opposed to Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams (although I'm not so sure Mr. Capote is a positive role model, LOL). Some of these gay men feel that the only way to assimilate is being like someone else as opposed to bringing your own set of unique circumstances to the table. But then that seems to be a problem with straight people as well.

Don't you feel that part of the problem is a severe lack of role models, or maybe the role models are there; they are just overshadowed by the glamour/entertainment industry? I'm not sure as these are very complex, multi-faceted problems.

Ryan,

While I see your point, I think it's a bit less dramatic than that. In the 80's gay men were extremely efeminate. I think it was just that they could be more openly gay, and it went to an extreme. This super masculine phase is just the pendulum swinging in the other direction. It happens with many things!

 

[Warik]

Oh, I don't have a problem with people saying what they think, but Warik seems to just say what he thinks will piss people off for his jollies, which he pretty much admitted to.

I never said I piss off people in order to get my jollies. I say what I say because I believe it to be true. If others decide to act childish and insult me without providing counterpoints because I'm "not empathic" amuses me because it shows me what kind of children I'm dealing with. flexed1 completely disagree with what I said, yet responded intelligently. This is significant when you also consider the fact that he's gay himself. Amazing, eh?

As I've pointed out to Warik on other occasions, it does matter how you present your opinions. If you present things in nasty nutcase light, don't be all surprised and pointlessly smug when people treat you like one.

I know how to present my opinions. Though I've said before that school is not as important as people think, I've written countless excellent persuasive papers for advanced composition classes. Like they always say in writing class, "you must consider the audience." If I were writing a speech for the public on the issue of gays and suicide, I would have to be "empathic" or hire someone to be "empathic" for me because I know about the ignorance and quick-to-label behavior that exists in the general public. Say something mean about somebody, even if it's true, and you're automatically labeled a bigot and a "fucking idiot." Woohoo. Given the fact that my conversations with and against Elite members in the past have proven to be somewhat intelligent, I didn't think I had to sugar-coat everything. Then again, I've never really seen you post before, so I didn't anticipate that you would participate and have your feelings hurt.

My problem with his post is yes, queenie guys, often gay, but gay guys not often queenie.

My problem with your post is the failure to read my post. Did I EVER say, or even SUGGEST, that "ALL GAYS ACT QUEENIE." No! Not once. I said that most, if not all, guys in general who act queenie ARE gay. I don't think anyone has disagreed with me on that point yet.

How would the big guys among you feel about feel about these two: "all men with deep voices are stupid," or "muscley guys are rapists," are those harmless stereotypes?

Now, I'm not the biggest, or even one of the biggest, guys here, but I was the biggest/best built in my high school senior classes because I took all advanced class and the people in those classes, typically, do not attend the gym regularly (uh oh... Warik is stereotyping smart kids! aieeee!) Most of them thought I was a jerk and an asshole (my best friend in HS, who happened to be friends with the others, told me this) without even knowing me. I would walk into class, sit, listen to the teacher/take a nap, and leave. I'd never say a word to anyone. How can they confirm that I'm a jerk or an asshole without even talking to me? They can't.

So, I was the "victim" of a stereotype. My opinion? Yes, it IS a harmless stereotype? You know why? Because it didn't phase me at all. I went to class, got my A's, and didn't talk to the people who didn't like me. In other words, I practiced the long forgotten art of "mind your own business." I didn't have problems with that stereotype because I didn't give a shit. Perhaps we'd see many fewer gay suicides if they simply wouldn't give a shit.

I made this point, earlier in the thread, but I guess Warik didn't bother to read it. I really doubt he could refute it in its substance. He is more likely to pick at the edges and ignore the substance. That's his usual tactic in his "logical" arguements.

Why would I bother attacking the counterargument itself if the foundation is not even secure? Would the U.S. Army attack a Taliban camp by storming through the front gate, or by sneaking in a BIG GAPING HOLE in an unprotected fence? When you can secure the outside of your argument, then of course, I'll have to attack the inside. If, however, you cannot remain consistent, I have no reason to bother.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

You stereotype gay men and then claim nobody should stereotype you

Nope. I don't care if I'm stereotyped. If the stereotype is true, it's true. If it's false, it's false and it does not have an effect on me. My comment was in regard to the fact that those all over this thread who claim that stereotypes are bad proceed to stereotype me (or rather, in your case, invent a stereotype out of the blue and use it).

I have no problem with stereotypes - I have a problem with inconsistency.

You claim you don't care about homosexuality -- unless it's demonstrated "flagrantly," yet you have no hesitation (a) in demonstrating your flagrant negative generalizations in this respect

Yes, and? I said I have no problem as long as it's not demonstrated flagrantly, but that if it is demonstrated flagrantly, the only right I have is to dislike it. I cannot and would not attempt to interfere.

Just as I have the right to dislike what someone is doing while still being within his rights, I have the right to demonstrate my "flagrant negative generalizations" while you have the right to disagree. If you do choose to disagree, however, I would prefer that you'd do so in a civil manner, i.e. via a method other than the one you are opposing.

in flagrantly posting a thread about the facts of your own sexual orientation.

I don't remember posting a big thread saying "HI I'M STRAIGHT!" Did I do that? (Seriously... I don't recall. Link please?)

Yawn.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

Just for the record AIDS is NOT a gay disease, but it is linked to lifestyle! Sorry, it's just a fact!

Thank you for your commentary. Now, everyone, he and I said practically the exact same thing, only he sugar-coated it and said it with much "empathy." Does that somehow make his point valid and mine invalid?

-Warik

 

[Warik]

That is a very limited slice of gay life on which to make generalizations about the entire community.

Apparently I dont have enough information because I "have no real-world experience," yet somehow he does not have enough information either because he only has 15 years of real-world experience? How many do you have? 16?

Give me a break. You just don't want to be wrong. An admirable quality, but only when the desire is warranted.

-Warik

 

[alexiarenee]

I don't want to sound like a rude asshole here... but killing oneself? Isn't that a bit overboard? Does it really SOLVE anything? Are people truly THAT weak? I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, I truly am... It's just, I have a hard time finding sympathy in my heart for those who take the easy way out of life... rather than taking these challenges head on...



C

This is true...but if something happened to my daughter- I honestly think I would kill myself...........

 

[p0ink]

Ok, if any of you have ever read some of my posts, you might realize I am quite conservative. However, I really could care less what someone's sexuality is. If they want to be gay, cool, whatever. I really could care less. However, if they let their sexuality define who they are as a person, then that is where I get quite annoyed. I don't see the necessity of parading what you like to do in the bedroom and trying to force it down other people's throats. I know several gay people who do not do this at all, and I also know some who do, so I really think it varies with the individual. I have never seen a post where musclebrains or analassplorer were like, "yo, you really gotta be gay man. it's the fuckin shit, it's way better than being straight." People just need to live their fuckin lives and not get so fucking hung up about what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I can understand if someone is hitting on you constantly, then it is acceptable to make their brains come out of their nose. I like militant gays as much as i like militant blacks or inred, racist whites. "Gay Rights...White Power...Kill Whitey..." FUCK YOU.

 

[wyst]

I know how to present my opinions. Though I've said before that school is not as important as people think, I've written countless excellent persuasive papers for advanced composition classes. Like they always say in writing class, "you must consider the audience." If I were writing a speech for the public on the issue of gays and suicide, I would have to be "empathic" or hire someone to be "empathic" for me because I know about the ignorance and quick-to-label behavior that exists in the general public. Say something mean about somebody, even if it's true, and you're automatically labeled a bigot and a "fucking idiot." Woohoo. Given the fact that my conversations with and against Elite members in the past have proven to be somewhat intelligent, I didn't think I had to sugar-coat everything. Then again, I've never really seen you post before, so I didn't anticipate that you would participate and have your feelings hurt.
-Warik

That's somewhat disingenous, given that we had a big back and forth only a day or two ago (where you chose not to advance much in the way of a justifiction for your points nor to directly answer my points, despite the fact that I was posting pretty calmly at that point). Also, it ignores that fact that I posted on *this* thread long before you did. Did you actually read the whole thread before posting to it?

At any rate, I do feel I owe you an apology for calling you a fucking idiot last night. I'm coming down with something and even snapped at my boss this morning over just about nothing. That has nothing to do with you, and I'm sorry, and I hope you'll forgive me for that. I'm going home sick in a bit.

I do, however stand by the substance of what I said last night, and I submit that you did, in a sense, fail to consider your audience adequately. I think a thread where people are talking about friends that died deserves a bit more empathy than you have shown. You can mock us and say that we are oversensitive and by saying you didn't realize you needed to sugar coat your words, but jesus christ, this is people talking about friends who died. I have had friends commit suicide myself, and it's not something that stops feeling bad quickly.

I also think that, as a moderator, you have a responsibility to be a bit more careful than the average poster. I admit, you didn't descend to the name calling I did, but I do think you stirred things up in an extremely negative way, whether intentionally or not. I think this happens quite frequently with threads that you post on. Could it not be the case that maybe you need to reconsider your audience and the way you approach it?

Wyst

 

[musclebrains]

Nope. I don't care if I'm stereotyped. If the stereotype is true, it's true. If it's false, it's false and it does not have an effect on me.

Warik, that is so dumb it is really funny. It should be enshrined in a social psycholgogy text book.

Me stereotype true. You stereotype false.

That's the problem with stereotyping, you nitwit.

 

[musclebrains]

Apparently I dont have enough information because I "have no real-world experience," yet somehow he does not have enough information either because he only has 15 years of real-world experience? How many do you have? 16?

Give me a break. You just don't want to be wrong. An admirable quality, but only when the desire is warranted.

-Warik

LOL...There is no way you can draw a conclusion about all gay people on the basis of people who hang out in gay clubs. That is as self evident as your nearest text book on statistical sampling. Can you imagine if social research were conducted that way? We want to know about the sexual behavior of heterosexuals, so we're going to spend 15 years at Hooters! Hey, guess what, we've learned all straight people drink too much beer and suffer a breast fetish!

If I encountered a majority of people your age on Elite with your level of willful ignorance, even after 15 years, I think I'd be quite mistaken to say that this could be generalized outside the set of people on Elite.

Hello? Is this complicated?

 

[HumorMe]

Hey Warik

I'm with you buddy on this one. People need thicker skin if they are going to post here. When I first started posting here, I let things bother me to the point of making remarks as wyst has by calling them idiots, shit for brains, fucking dickhead, blah, blah, blah.(wyst, before you fly off at me...save it because I've heard it before....I'm just making reference to what has already been pointed out.) Wyst made a reference that I must be gay cause I posted on this thread saying "this thread was gay." Cheap shot but nonetheless funny. Warik, you are doing a fine job here and don't let anybody tell you any different.

As far as RyanH's friend committing suicide.....it's very sad that someone would resort to that. What a waste. Suicide is not the answer but some people can't handle the truth.

 

[Jimsbbc]

Whats wrong with a breast fetish?

 

[HumorMe]

so I really think it varies with the individual. I have never seen a post where musclebrains or analassplorer were like, "yo, you really gotta be gay man. it's the fuckin shit, it's way better than being straight." People just need to live their fuckin lives and not get so fucking hung up about what someone does in the privacy of their own home. I can understand if someone is hitting on you constantly, then it is acceptable to make their brains come out of their nose. I like militant gays as much as i like militant blacks or inred, racist whites. "Gay Rights...White Power...Kill Whitey..." FUCK YOU.

Good point pOink. I like musclebrains and analassplorer. They are good people who are comfortable with their sexuality.
No problem here with either them. Good guys!

 

[Warik]

Hey, guess what, we've learned all straight people drink too much beer and suffer a breast fetish!

Most straight people do tend to be somewhat fond of breasts. Imagine that - your statistical sampling is true!

You mentioned that that's "the problem with stereotyping." No, the problem with stereotyping is not that they exist - the problem with stereotyping is that people foolishless let negative stereotypes affect them. You do realize, of course, that no one can offend you without your permission, right?

If I called you a big dumb doofus right now, I'm certain it wouldn't phase you at all. Why? Because it's untrue. So why does someone thinking: "oh, he prances around like a fairy... there is a strong chance that he is a homosexual" bother you?

-Warik

 

[gymtime]

Good Lord, this is still going on? Please tell my you guys haven't been up all night.

 

[wyst]

Hey Warik

I'm with you buddy on this one. People need thicker skin if they are going to post here. When I first started posting here, I let things bother me to the point of making remarks as wyst has by calling them idiots, shit for brains, fucking dickhead, blah, blah, blah.(wyst, before you fly off at me...save it because I've heard it before....I'm just making reference to what has already been pointed out.) Wyst made a reference that I must be gay cause I posted on this thread saying "this thread was gay." Cheap shot but nonetheless funny. Warik, you are doing a fine job here and don't let anybody tell you any different.

As far as RyanH's friend committing suicide.....it's very sad that someone would resort to that. What a waste. Suicide is not the answer but some people can't handle the truth.

Yes, I apologized a little higher up for calling warik a fucking idiot. I has out of line. I do think that Warik tends to create these situations, which I think is kind of beneath where a mod on the board should be, however.

I was only kidding about you being gay because you posted on this thread, just as I thought you were only kidding about calling this whole thread gay. I hope you took it that way; as a bisexual myself, I intended it as a tongue-in-cheek remark. If I offended you, my bad.

I also agree that suicide is not an answer. I thought that the thread was talking about how to reach people who are too sad to realize that. I think that sometimes people who are depressed for whatever reason can do very stupid and sad things, and it's good to think about ways to help them get well again, that's all.

Wyst

 

[HumorMe]

Good Lord, this is still going on? Please tell my you guys haven't been up all night.

LOL.....not me. I slept for two hours and came back.....I'm good to go!

Karma your way sir! I can't sign it except for little ^^^^^ marks. It's green leaving here....hope it arrives that way!

 

[HumorMe]

Yes, I apologized a little higher up for calling warik a fucking idiot. I has out of line. I do think that Warik tends to create these situations, which I think is kind of beneath where a mod on the board should be, however.

I was only kidding about you being gay because you posted on this thread, just as I thought you were only kidding about calling this whole thread gay. I hope you took it that way; as a bisexual myself, I intended it as a tongue-in-cheek remark. If I offended you, my bad.

I also agree that suicide is not an answer. I thought that the thread was talking about how to reach people who are too sad to realize that. I think that sometimes people who are depressed for whatever reason can do very stupid and sad things, and it's good to think about ways to help them get well again, that's all.

Wyst

No offense taken....I thought it was funny!

 

[musclebrains]

Most straight people do tend to be somewhat fond of breasts. Imagine that - your statistical sampling is true!

You mentioned that that's "the problem with stereotyping." No, the problem with stereotyping is not that they exist - the problem with stereotyping is that people foolishless let negative stereotypes affect them. You do realize, of course, that no one can offend you without your permission, right?

If I called you a big dumb doofus right now, I'm certain it wouldn't phase you at all. Why? Because it's untrue. So why does someone thinking: "oh, he prances around like a fairy... there is a strong chance that he is a homosexual" bother you?

-Warik

LOL...nice try. Having an interest in breasts isn't the same thing as having a behavioral fetish and we are talking about behavior. If you want to reform statistical theory, go for it. I'm gonna let my partner, who is the chief designer of statistical analysis for CDC, know about this. It's going to make his work so much cheaper and easier. The taxpayers are gonna be so happy! Instead of random sampling, he can just pick the easiest locations to sample and then generalize to an entire population. KEWL!!!!

Nobody can offend you without your permission? Um, lemme see. If I'm denied housing and employment on the basis of my sexual orienation, which is quite legal, I should not be offended. And of course, not being offended, I should just move on without protest, is that right? Because to protest would be to become flagrant. Wait. I know. You're going to give me a special definition of what it means to be "offended."

I couldn't care less that you demean some gay people. I already said that. What I resent is your ridiculous effort to represent prejudice as rational. Do I need to re-quote that feelings-free statment you made earlier, the one that followed your insistence that we all remain unemotional? Here it is:

""I honestly don't care as long as I don't have to be subjected to witnessing any acts of homosexuality or flagrant displays of flaming gayness (i.e. tight pink shirts with limp wrists and a nasty liTHHHHHP), but I wish you'd stop crying about it. Wahhh homosexuals are stereotyped! How many times do I have to say it? "

You don't like, on a visceral, emotional level, certain aspects of homosexuality. Fine. But don't try to pass your distaste off as rational. As you say, you DO have a choice about this and you choose to continue promoting disgust. You choose irrationality while demanding the rest of us be "logical."

I'm going to lunch. I have nothing more to say about this -- a fact that will delight Gymtime.

I find you funny and amusing, often convincing, in most respects, Warik, but I believe you have a significant blind spot in this respect. I hope, as I said earlier, you find someone you respect to listen to who doesn't share your opinions, at some point in your life.

 

[dballer]

Musclebrains....

If you would like the best BBQ in GA, go to Bucky's BBQ on Sandy Plains Rd. In Marietta... just up the road from Sprayberry HS... in the Publix Shopping Center near HWY 5.

I swear to Boobs it has great Chili and Brunswick Stew!!!!

thank me later!!

DBaller

 

[musclebrains]

Musclebrains....

If you would like the best BBQ in GA, go to Bucky's BBQ on Sandy Plains Rd. In Marietta... just up the road from Sprayberry HS... in the Publix Shopping Center near HWY 5.

I swear to Boobs it has great Chili and Brunswick Stew!!!!

thank me later!!

DBaller

you're too late. Been there. I'm a barbecue fanatic, and still love Aleck's Comeback Barbecue on Auburn Ave., best, though these are also favorites:

Swallow at the Hollow in Roswell, gourmet stuff

Factory's on Blvd., weird barbecue from the Midwest

Daddy D'z for ribs, grant park

Rockin' Rob's -- barbecue with weird sauces and a huge colledtion of vinyl records, any of which the'll play for you

Flying Pig in Hapeville, though I don't know if it's still open. YOu used to sit on car seats here and they served the cue on a piece of wax paper!

hae Woon Dae -- Korean barbecue cooked at the table

Spiced Right, couple of locations, and that place out by the prison -- the one with the jigsaw Jesuses on the walls, can't think of the name.

Now I'm really hungry.

 

[dballer]

I have a meeting now.. I will post mine in a few.. when it is over.

 

[CRNT93]

1) Gay men are more promiscuous. This has mostly to do with the fact that women on the whole are harder to get into bed than men, gay or str8. A study done in the mid to late 80's of gay men in San Francisco, and tha Avg number of partners was 450! That had been declining mastly due to fear of AIDS, but this trend has been reversing itslef for the last 5-8 years with the new drug protocols making AIDS seem more manageable!
2) AIDS. Man this really bohers me, but sadly the gay population is largely infected with this virus. Of my friends (which are gay) 80% of the are HIV +. While the CDC puts the figure at around 30-35%, that is only including people who get tested! We both know that there are alot more out there, who are sick and know it, but refuse to get tested, because they wish to deny that they are sick. While the CDC's numbers are low, it is a static figure. But I would say that the chances of a gay man contracting HIV during his life are closer to 80-90%. What scares me is that not only is promiscuity on the rise, instances of safe sex are going down.l

So am I predjudiced when I think gays are promiscuous and that AIDS is more prevalent in gay circles?

 

[smallmovesal]

essentially yes.

 

[dballer]

Musclebrains..
Daddy D'Z has bad service. I do not like to wait... so I do not eat there.

I like these...

No Name.. (a place in Dallas that has no name... )

Hiram Hickory House .. in Hiram

Bucky's... in Marietta

Fat Matt's.. for the Brunswick and the Chicken Shack (the friend fish is awesome)

The Pink Pig (the one you love to hate)

these are my top five. The one in Dallas is a hole in the wall. I fyou like good homade BBQ... this is the place. One kind of sauce... an old lady with a cigarette chopping up the meat... this is REAL BBQ!!! If you are into eating here.. let me know, I will give you directions.

I also like the ones on your list.. except Daddy D'Z.. I waited there once for 30 minutes for a sweet tea.. maybe someone else.. but not me. I do not wait.

essentially yes.

Yes... but FACTUALLY it is true.

It does not mean that all gay men have AIDS.. but the facts are the facts.

If you proclaim your (men)strength is greater that that of a woman.. you are a woman hater... but factually it is true.

 

[buddy28]

Very true in my experience, Buddy. In encounter groups I've run, there often arrives the moment when the stereotyper realizes that he has been blind to the other in his individuality. In connecting to the "real" person, there's always a flash of grief on realizing that you've denied yourself connection of depth to people on a trivial difference.

yep. Pretty amazing. Its the big "ah-ha! Ive really fucked up" moment

 

[buddy28]

No, the problem with stereotyping is not that they exist - the problem with stereotyping is that people foolishless let negative stereotypes affect them.

thats one of the problems associated with sterotyping. Another *MAJOR* problem associated with sterotyping is people actually begin to believe, then *act*, on the sterotypes theyve constructed. Discrimination and unfair treatment result.

Ex.

1950's, southern US states. All blacks are stupid ass dirty nigers. Sterotype. Whites then treat all blacks indignantly and with disdain, based on the assumption, the sterotype, that blacks have less worth than whites. Blacks are harrassed, spit on, beaten up, killed, raped.

Ex.

All blacks are criminals. Sterotype. Racial profiling and police harrassment of innocent ethnic minoritys follows.


People sterotype everyday. Its impossible not too. Humans are adept at creating generalizations of peoples expected behavour and personality composition based on past interactions with people who exhibit similar social idiosyncracies. The trick, is *choosing* to approach each person with an open mind, to assume that their past experiences cannot be known, therefore, successfullly "pigeon holing" a person, or sterotyping them, will never accurately assess an individuals true motivations and personality.

Benefits of sterotyping
1) its fast
2) its easy
3) it requires little objective thought
4) it reinforces the idea of superior sterotyper intelligence

Caveats of sterotyping
1) it demeans the sterotyper by reducing the immutable worth of another human being.
2) it perpetuates social stigmas associated with belonging to an marginalized social group - which leads to discrimintory and prejudicial behavour by people who participate in forming and perpetuating sterotypes.
3) it creates distention and conflict between the sterotyper and sterotyped group which reduces potential life happiness enjoyed by both parties.

can anyone add to this?

 

[spentagn]

I finally clicked on this thread, skimmed over most of it, and realized one thing: This has to be one of the most brutal and heated threads I've seen. Continue.


p.s. I would respond to the original question, but frankly, I can't remember what it was.

 

[HappyScrappy]

buddy28 - have you read A Demon Haunted World? it seems I write of that book every other post of mine - but it has some excellent points on a wide variety of things that should require logical thinking, but the everyday person tends not to use that in the instances where they come up.
one of them being sterotyping and he (Carl Sagan) makes points very similar to what you say here.

 

[Code]

Well, by it's very nature, a stereotype is an assumption based on little or no evidence.

We all base some amount of decisions on a stereotype, it's unavoidable.

Where the problem arises is when your bias are plainly obvious, they makes others uncomfortable or you rely on stereotypes to the exclusion of anectdotal evidence. Or even worse, your bias makes life easier for you at the expense of others.

Also, it hasn't been mentioned, but ALL cultures/races/denominations are stereotyped, including the white male. With that being said, the white male very often is forced to lie and/or downplay his persona when dealing with the more common victims of stereotypes.

 

[musclebrains]

Musclebrains..
Daddy D'Z has bad service. I do not like to wait... so I do not eat there.

I like these...

No Name.. (a place in Dallas that has no name... )

Hiram Hickory House .. in Hiram

Bucky's... in Marietta

Fat Matt's.. for the Brunswick and the Chicken Shack (the friend fish is awesome)

The Pink Pig (the one you love to hate)

these are my top five. The one in Dallas is a hole in the wall. I fyou like good homade BBQ... this is the place. One kind of sauce... an old lady with a cigarette chopping up the meat... this is REAL BBQ!!! If you are into eating here.. let me know, I will give you directions.

I also like the ones on your list.. except Daddy D'Z.. I waited there once for 30 minutes for a sweet tea.. maybe someone else.. but not me. I do not wait....

I always call ahead. I live less than a mile from them and, although I like Matt's barbecue, I think his ribs are way fatty compared to Daddy Dz.

What I haven't been able to find lately is NC-style barbecue, made with a vinegar/mustard base like my uncle, King of the Outer Banks Barbecue, used to make. Dusty's used to be NC-style but reverted to using tomatoes and ketchup.

I tell you whose sucks and that's Sonny's on Cheshire Bridge. Big garbage.

 

[spentagn]

The best BBQ in the state of Texas is at Kreutze's (sp?). Dballer, if you're ever down here, I'll take ya there. Mb, your beloved Texas Monthly actually agrees with me on this one and ranked it the best in the state.

 

[buddy28]

buddy28 - have you read A Demon Haunted World? it seems I write of that book every other post of mine - but it has some excellent points on a wide variety of things that should require logical thinking, but the everyday person tends not to use that in the instances where they come up.
one of them being sterotyping and he (Carl Sagan) makes points very similar to what you say here.

yea, man. I plan to read it. I have noticed u bring it up Demon Haunted World quite a bit , but I bet its a good book. Ive heard alot of people, other than urself, talk highly of the book. Im looking forward to reading it.

Right now Im reading The Seat Of The Soul, by Gary Zoukoff. Its alright. He has insightfull understanding of why the human race is predisposed to inter species conflict and suffering ect..... but he also assumes unprovable theistic docterines like reincarnation, something I dont beleive in. But hey, its a decent book.

Ill let you know what I think of Demon Haunted World when i get around to reading it.

 

[musclebrains]

The best BBQ in the state of Texas is at Kreutze's (sp?). Dballer, if you're ever down here, I'll take ya there. Mb, your beloved Texas Monthly actually agrees with me on this one and ranked it the best in the state.

I like Texas barbecue. even though it kills and cooks the wrong animal. Of course the classic barbecue scene to end all barbecue scenes was in Giant, when Liz Taylor, out of place in Tejas, was offered a mouthful of brains out on the range.

 

[musclebrains]

Right now Im reading The Seat Of The Soul, by Gary Zoukoff. Its alright. He has insightfull understanding of why the human race is predisposed to inter species conflict and suffering ect..... but he also assumes unprovable theistic docterines like reincarnation, something I dont beleive in. But hey, its a decent book.

I am surprised to hear you are reading this book. What exactly is it that you like about it?

 

[dballer]

I always call ahead. I live less than a mile from them and, although I like Matt's barbecue, I think his ribs are way fatty compared to Daddy Dz.

What I haven't been able to find lately is NC-style barbecue, made with a vinegar/mustard base like my uncle, King of the Outer Banks Barbecue, used to make. Dusty's used to be NC-style but reverted to using tomatoes and ketchup.

I tell you whose sucks and that's Sonny's on Cheshire Bridge. Big garbage.

I am gonna give Factory's a shot.. I work right up the street.

My favorite is also the Carolina style.. hands down. I cook alot.. I made some BBQ with a sauce made from mustard, vinegar.. but I added dried Ancho peppers... I also made one with a Roasted Plobano & Brown Sugar carmalization cooked onto the roast before I chopped it. It was good.

Here is a PERFECT place for NC BBQ....
from where you live... go 20E to Thorton Rd. stay to the right and at the top of the Exit Ramp take a right. Get in the left lane. Go to the top of the hill past the QT and begin to look for the BBQ place next to the Wendy's.

This is my secret weapon... when someone takes me out for BBQ.. I can always shoot it down with this place... Ace In The Hole...

 

[buddy28]

I am surprised to hear you are reading this book. What exactly is it that you like about it?

y are u surprised? Had me pegged for a Christian fundamentalist?

Well, a relative gave it to me for christimas, and id feel guilty if I didnt read it.
To be honest, Im only on page 100, but I see some underlying themes postulated by Zoukoff that are consistent with my own beleifs:

1) the human race engages in interspecies conflict to horde power. To the 5 sensory human, or the unenlightened human, external power is the source of confidence, pride, and security. Essientially, external power, to the 5 sensory human, conveys the worth of an individual. If an individual possess little resources, their worth is inherently less than others. Therefore, their continued exploitation, be it economic, social, or cultural, can be justified to serve the benefit of the ruling class.

That point is very true. History has shown that the ruling class has little reverence for their fellow human beings (another concept Zoukov addresss i agree with, reverence for humanity bit), which has feuled colionial exploitation, the slave trade, and world wars. Although not all conflicts are fueled by a complete lack of disrespect for other humans, (countries are forced to defend themselves from aggressing nations), most wars are feuled by the underlying assumption that outgroup membership insinuates reduced human worth.

I dont beleive in reincarnation. Zoukov talks extensivily about how the human soul is undergoing an evolutionary process where its life experiences are meant to complete its growth to a divine standard. Ive got no problems with the human soul undergoing a "spiritual evolution" if you will, but because Im Christian, I beleive it takes place in only one cycle of our mortal exsistence.

I think Zoukov made some interesting points about how the soul, being fragmented in certain characteristics, is given a body, and a unique personality that furthers the growth of the souls "weak points". However, there are some moral problems associated with assuming each person is undergoing "just treatment" for previous actions committed in another reincarnation. One of the problems associated with assuming every persons life experience, no matter how torturus, is just, discourages personal motivation in finding a cure for another persons suffering, as opposed to the motivation created when a person assumes some of lifes indignaties are caused by events uncontrollable to the sufferer. . IF a person adopts a karmic philiosphy of human suffering, not only does it become difficult for a person to be inspired to heal the suffering of the masses because the inflicted suffering is somehow "just", but it becomes equally hard for the suffering to ever end. Why? Evil begets evil. If a person is punished for a previous lifes actions, their actions, usually in the next life, will consist in a large part of hurting others, since they are hurting themselves. Those people go and hurt others, and the cycle never ends. I suppose if people experiencing negative life events managed to help more people than they hurt, then the net karmic deficit of the entire human race could be turned around. After experiecing some 10,000 years of recorded human evolution, this hasnt happened yet. Perhaps because humans havent reached the transitionary juncture from 5 sensory to multisensory experience?

I dont know. Ill let u know when i finish the book.

 

[runner]

note to self: avoid gary zukav.

 

[gorilla_boy]

I really have nothing to contribute. Just looking for a reason to post this wickedly sexy pic again.

Flame away. (pun fully intended)

 

[musclebrains]

y are u surprised? Had me pegged for a Christian fundamentalist?

Well, a relative gave it to me for christimas, and id feel guilty if I didnt read it.
To be honest, Im only on page 100, but I see some underlying themes postulated by Zoukoff that are consistent with my own beleifs:

1) the human race engages in interspecies conflict to horde power. To the 5 sensory human, or the unenlightened human, external power is the source of confidence, pride, and security. Essientially, external power, to the 5 sensory human, conveys the worth of an individual. If an individual possess little resources, their worth is inherently less than others. Therefore, their continued exploitation, be it economic, social, or cultural, can be justified to serve the benefit of the ruling class.

That point is very true. History has shown that the ruling class has little reverence for their fellow human beings (another concept Zoukov addresss i agree with, reverence for humanity bit), which has feuled colionial exploitation, the slave trade, and world wars. Although not all conflicts are fueled by a complete lack of disrespect for other humans, (countries are forced to defend themselves from aggressing nations), most wars are feuled by the underlying assumption that outgroup membership insinuates reduced human worth.

I dont beleive in reincarnation. Zoukov talks extensivily about how the human soul is undergoing an evolutionary process where its life experiences are meant to complete its growth to a divine standard. Ive got no problems with the human soul undergoing a "spiritual evolution" if you will, but because Im Christian, I beleive it takes place in only one cycle of our mortal exsistence.

I think Zoukov made some interesting points about how the soul, being fragmented in certain characteristics, is given a body, and a unique personality that furthers the growth of the souls "weak points". However, there are some moral problems associated with assuming each person is undergoing "just treatment" for previous actions committed in another reincarnation. One of the problems associated with assuming every persons life experience, no matter how torturus, is just, discourages personal motivation in finding a cure for another persons suffering, as opposed to the motivation created when a person assumes some of lifes indignaties are caused by events uncontrollable to the sufferer. . IF a person adopts a karmic philiosphy of human suffering, not only does it become difficult for a person to be inspired to heal the suffering of the masses because the inflicted suffering is somehow "just", but it becomes equally hard for the suffering to ever end. Why? Evil begets evil. If a person is punished for a previous lifes actions, their actions, usually in the next life, will consist in a large part of hurting others, since they are hurting themselves. Those people go and hurt others, and the cycle never ends. I suppose if people experiencing negative life events managed to help more people than they hurt, then the net karmic deficit of the entire human race could be turned around. After experiecing some 10,000 years of recorded human evolution, this hasnt happened yet. Perhaps because humans havent reached the transitionary juncture from 5 sensory to multisensory experience?

I dont know. Ill let u know when i finish the book.

I liked Zukav's first book, the Dancing Woo Woos (or something). It was about new physics.

I've found his subsequent work superficial. The idea that humankind is necessarily on a moral or spritually evolutionary path is dubious, wishful thinking. History discloses the way we charge ahead and fall back into the dark ages repeatedly. It's always tempting to say that, even still, we move ahead by increments, but I'm not sure any philosopher has said anything much more profund than Aristotle or Plato and I doubt that any wisdom as deep as the Buddha's -- he prefigured quantum theory -- has emerged in the last thousand years. The Holocaust may have been the most evil moment in recorded history but occurred in modernity.

I think the New Age tends to distort the doctrine of karma for narcissistic purposes and to excuse the absence of a social conscience. But compassion, embodied in the figure of the bodhisattva, is the highest value in Buddhism. The bodhisattva delays the end of his own samsara until "the last blade of grass" has been enlightened. "Navel gazing" has a much greater role in the American understanding of Buddhism than in the world where it has been traditionally practiced.

I don't think there's much difference between Buddhism and Christianity, myself, unless numbers matter a lot.

 

[buddy28]

I liked Zukav's first book, the Dancing Woo Woos (or something). It was about new physics.

I havent read Zukov's first book. Wouldnt mind reading it.

I've found his subsequent work superficial. The idea that humankind is necessarily on a moral or spritually evolutionary path is dubious, wishful thinking.

Very true.

History discloses the way we charge ahead and fall back into the dark ages repeatedly. It's always tempting to say that, even still, we move ahead by increments, but I'm not sure any philosopher has said anything much more profund than Aristotle or Plato and I doubt that any wisdom as deep as the Buddha's -- he prefigured quantum theory -- has emerged in the last thousand years. The Holocaust may have been the most evil moment in recorded history but occurred in modernity.

I dont know ancient history well, but it seems consistent that human moral evolution, or spiritual evolution, is two steps forward, one step back - at least concerning human history Im aware of. The adoption of the rule of law, however unjustly applied, is a great step forward from arbitrary prosecution by governing bodies. Democratic states also represent a huge leap forward from oppressive monarchial dictatorships. Funny thing is, with the advent of growing economic disparity between 1st world and 3rd world nations (thank you World Bank, IMF, Free Trade Agreements negiotiated by the US, and the greedy human spirit) + proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, were going to see an increase in global terrorism and regional conflicts. This in turn, will prompt tighter security measures, ie anti terrorism legislation, that restrict civilian liberties American forefathers fought so hard to attain. Already in place are global survillence systems headed by the NSA that intercept, filter through, and record, millions of telecommunications and electronic transmissions simultenously. People dont realise, but with increasing computer hardware and software sophistication, the government has the ability to target, monitor, and track, every person who participates in electronic communications. The "Net" is already in place. What happens when the next big terrorist attack occurs? Tighten down civilian liberties, increase domestic survillence of civilians to offsett the lack of human intelligence normally collected by retired feild agents (cold war downsizing), and de-arm the american public. Not that Im a big proponet of self protection with side arms, but handguns represent the single most serious threat to increased American government control of the civilian population.

Its amazing to think that this would ever happen considering the founding fathers earnst desire to create a democratic nation whose civil liberties are to be protected at all costs. But like history has shown, the ruling class always attempt to maintain existing "social order" that perpetuates their rule. Americas global hegemony rests in its economic affluence. Global conflict and domestic terrorism seriously comprimise the efficent functioning of the global economy, and undermine domestic consumer confidence, respecitivly. Peace is good for business. War is not, unless ur a third party country whose only selling military equipment, not participating in armed conflict.

So domestic terror attacks, and perceived global threats, however contrived by the American media, based on possibly "manicured" NSA and CIA foreign intelligence reports, will serve the *dual use* of justifying restrictions in civilian liberties. Increased control = decreased conflict. Decreased conflict = economic prosperity. If you can catch the perpetrator before the act is committed (be it hacker, mafia, domestic miltia groups, international terrorists, or "rouge" states), consumer confidence is saved, and economic security is insured. Survillence targeting the domestic, then global population insures anonmity of potentially violent political dissent is uncovered, and foiled. When economic security is insured through the reduction of domestic and foreign conflict, existing social order is maintained. The status quo lives another day. Mission accomplished.

This is the bread and butter of the workings of our government. Well, yours [US], but mine is a one trick poney. "Yes sir uncle sam, our economy depends on urs, we'll do whatever the fuck u say, SIR! "

Perhaps I am scaring you. I could elaborate, but Ur a smart dude. Perhaps u can see the patterns forming here. Can u see where that book u referenced about social psychological mechanisms used by the US Federal government to persuade civilians into agreement, or at least complasence, fits in? It gets very very scary. National ID cards further reduce privacy. Scientists have just developed bioelectronic identification devices, smaller than 3mm. The future is 1984 with color.

I think the New Age tends to distort the doctrine of karma for narcissistic purposes and to excuse the absence of a social conscience.

Yes. I was trying to get at this, but forgot "social conscience" existed in my vocabulary. thats exactly why I dont like the idea of reincarnation, because it somehow justifies earthly suffering. its ridiculous and arbitrary.

But compassion, embodied in the figure of the bodhisattva, is the highest value in Buddhism. The bodhisattva delays the end of his own samsara until "the last blade of grass" has been enlightened. "Navel gazing" has a much greater role in the American understanding of Buddhism than in the world where it has been traditionally practiced.

I don't think there's much difference between Buddhism and Christianity, myself, unless numbers matter a lot.

I cant comment on Buddism, because I dont know alot about it. One distinction between Buddism and Christianity is this: Christ claimed that he was the *only* way to God. Not to be a shit disturber, but thats what the man said.

 

[Pamela]

Are gays more self-destructive because of a sense of isolation, a sense of never being able to live up to family expectations......do many gay men just simply self-destruct?

Ryan.

I think ALL people have different stresses in their lives;
that causes self-destruction.
Some handle it in different ways, drinking, drugs, eating, sex & etc.
This just covers up what the stresses really are that's eating at them..

When people are so tired of fighting what life has handed them, they
think about change or more seriously, suicide. And also adding more to
the situation, drugs, drinking etc. confuses the person even more.
The more confused the person, the more likly he will commet suicide.


Sorry to here about your friend Ryan...

Pamela



I