Welp, I'm Done...
Brian Graeme
is gone... You can thank Sibe for that... Have a nice life, or whatever...
You won't be seeing any more til I know he's behind bars, or dead, whichever
comes first...
--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...
If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...
Sparky
stuff down and shutting shop until everything blows over is a good idea, and
I agree with you being upset, but the rest of your email will only instigate
this guy more, as well as get you flamed. The last thing we need right now
is a Holy Blaze...
Sparky. ^..^
Relax...You've got friends about.
artist
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> said...
> Took some time to delete over 100 images one by one, but everything on
> Velar is gone... You can thank Sibe for that... Have a nice life, or
> whatever... You won't be seeing any more til I know he's behind bars,
> or dead, whichever comes first...
I'm under the impression that you where formerly know here as Brian O'
Connel, is this correct. And if so, how many times does this make it that
you have left the fandom? Not that I really care, mind you. Your buisness
is your own and your welcome to it. We all make decisions, and you appear
to be comfortable with yours. :) That's all that counts, anyways.
--
ICQ UIN# 106922763
mell...@yahoo.com
http://users.transfur.com/white/
------------------------------------------------
| I dunno, I feel kinda warm and fuzzy inside. |
| I think I swallowed a tribble. |
| -Karl Xydexx Jorgensen |
------------------------------------------------
Brian Graeme
being my baptised name), I reclaimed it following the death of my mom in the
WTC attacks, so enough of everyone pretending there's any ulterior motives
behind that... Secondly, I didn't say I was 'leaving' anything, I deleted my
artwork from my velar directory to prevent future theft, end of story...
"artist" <mell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9155EFE2B3406...@24.24.0.6...
artist
<1lla...@tsewq.ten> said...
> You're assuming a lot... One, my name of Graeme is my birth name
> (O'connell being my baptised name), I reclaimed it following the death
> of my mom in the WTC attacks, so enough of everyone pretending there's
> any ulterior motives behind that... Secondly, I didn't say I was
> 'leaving' anything, I deleted my artwork from my velar directory to
> prevent future theft, end of story...
K. Just curious.
Sparky
solve problems, not make more.
We don't need to be nit-picking at everyone. From what I've gathered in the
eight years I've been watching the fandom, there's a lot of tolerance for
different sexual prefrence, and what kind of work someone wants to draw or
write, so why should what someone wants to call themselves be any different?
You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from the
fandom? Because I personally don't like all the gayness, and I got tired of
people bitching at me for my point of view.
Sparky. ^..^
artist
said...
> When you two are done fritten with each other, we'll be over here,
> trying to solve problems, not make more.
...?
> We don't need to be nit-picking at everyone. From what I've gathered in
> the eight years I've been watching the fandom, there's a lot of
> tolerance for different sexual prefrence, and what kind of work someone
> wants to draw or write, so why should what someone wants to call
> themselves be any different?
...?
> You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from
> the fandom? Because I personally don't like all the gayness, and I got
> tired of people bitching at me for my point of view.
...?
Where did that come from? I asked where the Burned Furs where in all this
becuase I wasn't sure what the general consensus from that group was, is
all. On one hand, we have this guy pirating other people's art, on the
other, some of that art is 'naughty'. I was meerly wondering what the (if
any) the conflicts of intrest where of any particular burned fur.
I recieved my answer. I can now die a happy young person. >^_^<
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>You want to know one of the major reasons why I distanced myself from the
Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
homosexuality/bisexuality.
--------------------
"It's ludicrous to have these interlocking bodies and not interlock. Please
remove your clothing now." -- Anya, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Sparky
>Where did that come from? I asked where the Burned Furs where in all this
>becuase I wasn't sure what the general consensus from that group was, is
>all. On one hand, we have this guy pirating other people's art, on the
>other, some of that art is 'naughty'. I was meerly wondering what the (if
>any) the conflicts of intrest where of any particular burned fur.
I wasn't trying to start a soul searching fight, I was merely trying to keep
people from nit-picking at everyone's details and justifications. These
kinds of ordeals (like with Sibe) usually lead to hockloads of finger
poking, and when people are tense, they tend to take things the wrong way.
Sorry for making an attempt at keeping the peace. I'm not really sure where
you got BF into this during those last four posts...Seems to me that Brian
was getting a little hot about your question...
>Blackberry
> Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
> homosexuality/bisexuality.
Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
really cares anyway. Right?
See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
Opinions are so biased, you know...
Sparky. ^..^
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
> really cares anyway. Right?
> See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
> don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
> around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
> according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
> Opinions are so biased, you know...
Of note : I don't know if Sparky has any hatred for gays, I don't know
the guy from jack so anyone that has a problem with him may know
something I don't. This isn't a defense of Sparky in particular but
about the general idea of what he said...
Everyone in this newsgroup, is a member of some majority or minority
that has a polar opposite. If you're atheist your polar opposite would
be a fundamentalist Christian. Vica-versa. If you're a Democrat your
polar opposite is a Republican. If you're an envirornmentalist any
industrial backing zealot if your opposite. In the 80s if you liked
metal your polar opposite was rap listeners. Now these opposites aren't
really absolute, they're just examples of what I generally mean.
Now you don't have to hate someone, to be uncomfortable in a room full
of your opposites. Would an atheist feel uncomfortable in a meeting
largely composed of fundamentalists talking shop? Sure he would. Is he
bigoted for not wanting to be around? Of course not. It's not hate, it's
just general discomfort. It's not his place. It's not like he's saying
they're evil, stupid, disgusting, inferior, whatever have you. It's that
he doesn't belong there. That's their area to discuss their thing. They
don't even have to talk about his beliefs to rub him wrong. Just them
being off into their own thing disinterests him, and will probably make
him uncomfortable.
Now if he hated being around ANY fundy, then you could stretch slightly
and say it's bigotry in the form of fear or something like that. If he
hated working with them at a job, assuming they were professional about
their beliefs and didn't discuss it at all... then you could say it is
bigotry without having to stretch the definition. That would be fear and
or hate.
So if you're a "hard line" het, what's your polar opposite? Duh! Gay
people in general but anyone that's real open about it is likely to
grind on your nerves somewhat. Same in reverse. If you're a gay guy you
probably have no interest in a discussion about hot chicks. It's just
not your thing. So why would any het guy (forget Sparky) feel at home in
an area where gay topics were frequently discussed and or dominated the
envirornment? He wouldn't. He would want to move on to an area where
things interest him more.
Every one of does exactly what sparky does on a daily basis. How many
of you out there that are just in the fandom for the art and the stories
AREN'T on aff.lifestyle? How many thousands of newsgroups have you not
joined because it didn't interest you? Have you ever left a newsgroup
because the dominating populace discussed stuff that you didn't like?
You're practicing exactly what Sparky did. Just because it involves a
"minority" or "alternative lifestyle" doesn't _necessarily_ make it
hate.
TT
As always, my personal opinion and nothing else.
Hannah Kincaid
Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
Sparky <fur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9snll8$2amq$1...@velox.critter.net...
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> I know where you're coming from, but here's a helpful hint:
>
> Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
> you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
> rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
> been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
>
> For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
You can't substitute gay for say, black. That won't work. Black isn't a
state of mind. Regardless of whether you believe being gay is genetic or
a choice, being gay does have a mind set. There are different mind sets
of course! They're not "all the same."
Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
bible thumping topics were the daily order?
Being an "otaku" is a state of mind ;-) If you had no interest in
Japanese animation, or worse, just straight out hated it would you want
to hang around in an envirornment where everyone thought it was the s---
and talk about it dominated the list?
TT
Jim Hall
>See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for
>gays. I don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't
>like being around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but
>then again, according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and
>immoral person.
I am sure that we all appreciate that you don't want to kill people.
However, failing to appreciate and understand other people for whom they
are will hold you back in life. Do not let little things like someone
else's sexual preference close doors of opportunity for you. IMO, The
ability to appreciate and understand other people is a leadership skill.
Farlo
Jim Hall
> Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>bible thumping topics were the daily order?
* You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
* The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics" are
the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
Farlo
Frances Kathleen Moffatt
> Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
> really cares anyway. Right?
Wrong.
> See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
> don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
> around them.
(Wondering how well you can tell...)
> It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
> according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
> Opinions are so biased, you know...
Immoral? Nah. I just feel sorry for you - there are so many cool people
out there, it seems a shame to cut yourself off from some of them because
their criteria for "who I'm attracted to" doesn't match yours.
Gingercat
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>>Blackberry
>
>> Er... nah, it's not even worth it. Email me if you have a complaint about
>> homosexuality/bisexuality.
>
>Go on. I'm sure anything you have to say can be said here, since no one
>really cares anyway. Right?
>See, you got some kinda issue on my personal lack of acceptance for gays. I
>don't hate them, or want to kill them or something, I just don't like being
>around them. It's just my personal feelings on the issue, but then again,
>according to the vibes I keep getting, I'm a naive and immoral person.
>Opinions are so biased, you know...
Why do you feel uncomfortable around homosexual people? If you're worried that
they're all trying to pick you up and picture you in your underwear or less,
don't give yourself that much credit. Is it possible for you to be friends with
a woman without always thinking about how to get her in bed?
Does your discomfort also apply to lesbians?
Blackberry
>
>Hannah Kincaid wrote:
>>
>> I know where you're coming from, but here's a helpful hint:
>>
>> Substitute the name of any ethnic minority for the word "gays" and maybe
>> you'll understand why people might have found your post a teensy bit
>> rude. Maybe. For extra points, substitute the name of a minority that's
>> been regularly subjected to violence. It's fun and educational! ;p
>>
>> For the record, I'm really glad you don't want to kill people.
>
> You can't substitute gay for say, black. That won't work. Black isn't a
>state of mind. Regardless of whether you believe being gay is genetic or
>a choice, being gay does have a mind set. There are different mind sets
>of course! They're not "all the same."
You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
black.
> Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>bible thumping topics were the daily order?
Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound, unfortunately.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>
> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
items.
> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics" are
> the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the furry
fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
> black.
But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>
> Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
nothing to do with it.
> It's not as cut and dried as you make it sound, unfortunately.
I can only agree to this.
Sparky
Look, I think my "non-acceptance of gays" needs a little more explaining.
I, personally, have no problems with most states of mind, whatsoever. You
want to be an anarchist, fine with me. You want to be a Republican (or
whatever party), fine with me. You want to do drugs, smoke, be drunk all the
time, pierce the crap out of yourself, be Goth, be a stiff, whatever, it's
fine with me. I'm a very, very tolerant person.
I have 4 friends on ICQ that are gay. We talk all the time. They just know
I'm not, and they don't discuss the subject. They don't try to talk about
some hot guy they saw, or try to pick me up. I don't slam them for being
gay, I simply let them know my limits, and we're cool.
I have 2 friends who's idea of a good time is to get so trashed they almost
die. I'm not with that, and they know it, but we're still friends.
The list continues, but I'm sure you get the picture...
The reason I brought this up, is that the story is almost always different
here. A scenario usually goes something like this:
--------------------------
Me: "Hello."
Other: "Hi." (hug)
Me: "Heh...Don't do that..." (peels him off)
Other: "Sorry..."
Me: "It's okay...I'm just not like that..."
Other: "Oh I get it."
Me: "What?"
Other: "You have a thing against gays."
Me: "No, I have no problem with you being gay, I just don't personally like
it."
Other: "You know, there's nothing wrong with being gay..."
Me: "I know. I just-"
Other: "You really should try to be more accepting of other people."
Me: "I am accepting! I just don't like it!"
Other: "You're going to live a sad life if you don't start accepting people
for who they are..."
Me: "Hello? Is anyone listening? I don't care if you're gay or not, I just
don't want you touching me or being gay to me! Can't you understand?"
Other: "You've got some real problems dude..."
-------------------------
TT seems to understand.
I will not let someone's being gay or what-have-you, keep me from being
friends with them. I'm not out to change people's minds, I'm not out to put
up some kind of protest. I simply want people to respect my opinion for who
I am. You don't have to like it. I'd just like for people to show the same
level of understanding, that's all. I'm tired of every time I state that I'm
not gay, that I get slammed. It's not a comfortable situation, and I don't
enjoy having my personally preferences and opinions being called-down all
the time.
I once, about three years ago, put up a post asking about furry fems. The
intention wasn't to pick up chicks, it was simply to figure out where they
all were since I didn't see a lot of females on the newsgroup. I never got a
single response; all I got was people slamming me for "being a pimp", "being
against gays", and fantastically, "trying to control women." To this day I'm
not sure why I got 136 posts of flaming goodness, but that was one of my
lasts posts.
(scrounges up his old posts from file) This is what I posted...maybe I
worded it wrong:
-------------
I notice there's a lot of female artists out in the fandom, but I don't see
too many here on the newsgroups. So where are all those cute fuzzy fems? Do
they just not like newsgroups?
-------------
Whatever...
Oh well...I guess I'm just a fool...
Sparky. ^..^
Furlisophical
Another Reality Productions
ICQ#74929754
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
skipping messages and not reading everything. I say it that way because
I run into a lot of people that only half read posts but want to rumble
about stupid stuff. If Sparky is telling the truth here, it's not Sparky
that is anti-gay, it's the envirornment he went into was anti-het. And
that would be hell to deal with. This goes beyond just being out of
sorts or uncomfortable, that's having people directly harass you. It
goes without saying but that's wrong, who would want to deal with that?
Why would a gay man hang in a het envirornment that constantly bashes
gays? He wouldn't. But it's wrong if the shoe is on the other foot?
Again I don't know Sparky, I'm just playing "devil's advocate" because
I know very few people have the steel huevos to do so. It's a touchy
subject, and no one ever seems interested in speaking out for the common
guy when he's being snapped at by the one everyone percieves as the
perpetual victim.
TT
Duncan da Husky
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> otherwise.
> Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose
> not to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two
> separate items.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice
-Duncan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady tab...@concentric.net http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan
Furry: Duncan da Husky SCA: Duncan MacKinnon of Tobermory
"I spent most of my childhood being terrified by the question 'Am I
normal?' I'm relieved now that I now know for sure that I am not."
- Tom Limoncelli
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> > otherwise.
> > Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose
> > not to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two
> > separate items.
>
> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#choice
I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
TT
Jim Hall
>Jim Hall wrote:
>> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
>> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
>
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> otherwise.
See Duncan's post. I think that the opinion of the "American Psychological
Association" is more convincing than your opinion.
>> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics"
>> are the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
>
> I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the
> furry
>fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
>general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
You implied this statement by stating that sparky's uncomfortable feelings
about furry fandom were similar to another person's feelings about being
surrounded by Fundamentalists thumping bibles as the order of the day.
If you did not mean to imply that "fundies thumping bibles as the order of
the day" was similar to "heavy gay topics as the order of the day in furry
fandom", then why did you choose the fundy example to explain Sparkys'
feelings?
Farlo
Jim Hall
>Oh well...I guess I'm just a fool...
There are fools, and then there are the ignorant.
The second is a choice. Everyone is foolish from time to time.
A real fool chooses ignorance and holds it tight.
Choose wisely.
Farlo
Jim Hall
>Again I don't know Sparky, I'm just playing "devil's advocate" because
>I know very few people have the steel huevos to do so.
It does not require any special courage to remain in the dark,
but it is often a hard choice.
Farlo =;)
Blackberry
>
>Jim Hall wrote:
>>
>> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>>
>> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>>
>> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
>> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
>
> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
>Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
>to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
>items.
Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
achievement.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
>> black.
>
> But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
>about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
>meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
Neither does "homosexual". It describes who you're attracted to and who you
want to spend your life with. It means nothing unless someone tries to impose
something on you because of it.
>> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
>> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
>> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
>>
>>Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
>> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
>
> It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
>about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
>nothing to do with it.
Really? So, the infants chose to be Protestants? How can we be sure that they
had all the comprehension of what their choice of religion would mean?
Duncan da Husky
> I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
You will have to excuse me if I lean towards the findings of a more
established body such as the American Psychological Association as opposed to
one man's ill-informed opinion.
-Duncan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady tab...@concentric.net
Furry: Duncan da Husky http://www.technomancer.com/~duncan/
"You've got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight"
- Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers in a Dangerous Time"
Blackberry
>
>I told you there was a lack for opinions... [...]
Sounds like we can all get along.
Blackberry
>
> I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
>opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
>but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
>Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
>same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
sign me up.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
>
> >Jim Hall wrote:
> >> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> >> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
> >
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be
> > otherwise.
>
> See Duncan's post. I think that the opinion of the "American Psychological
> Association" is more convincing than your opinion.
Didn't such associations (don't know if it was this particular one)
used to think that being gay as well as masturbation were severe
psychological disorders that necessitated medicine and wacko padded room
time?
In any case, it's a free world. Believe who you choose to belive. To
me, they're just another group of guys sitting around a table making
opinions and judgements.
> >> * The premise to your rhetorical question is that "heavy gay topics"
> >> are the daily order in furry fandom. That has not been my experience.
> >
> > I did not pose that "heavy gay topics" are the daily order in the
> > furry
> >fandom in general. In particular section of the fandom maybe, but not in
> >general. If you can quote where I said exactly that, go right ahead.
>
> You implied this statement by stating that sparky's uncomfortable feelings
> about furry fandom were similar to another person's feelings about being
> surrounded by Fundamentalists thumping bibles as the order of the day.
>
> If you did not mean to imply that "fundies thumping bibles as the order of
> the day" was similar to "heavy gay topics as the order of the day in furry
> fandom", then why did you choose the fundy example to explain Sparkys'
> feelings?
I made it clear in that first e-mail that I was not specifically
talking about Sparky therefore his situation in particular. I did not
imply the above, you read that meaning into my statement because you
were looking for that kind of statement. Do not read into people's
statements, read them as they are with an open mind. I'm not blasting
you here, but you have made an error in judgement for assuming that was
my intention.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:09:50 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Jim Hall wrote:
> >>
> >> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> >>
> >> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
> >>
> >> * You can choose your religion, and without history you would have no
> >> religion at all. People will be gay, history or not.
> >
> > Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
> >Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
> >to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
> >items.
>
> Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
> If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
> being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
> with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
> achievement.
So if I want to kill people but choose not to I'm still a killer? You
are not what the "devil"* on your shoulder tells you that you want to
do, you are what you consciously choose to be. It is still a mind set.
It is something that you as a person chose. It is nothing like being
born black.
And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
assumed wrong then excuse me).
* Devil reference as a metaphor, I am not a Christian and this has
nothing to do with religion
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:13:53 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
> >about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
> >meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
>
> Neither does "homosexual". It describes who you're attracted to and who you
> want to spend your life with. It means nothing unless someone tries to impose
> something on you because of it.
No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
> >> > Religion is a state of mind. Try switching "gays" with "funamenatlist
> >> >Christians." Would you be comfortable in a setting where heavy religious
> >> >bible thumping topics were the daily order?
> >>
> >>Explain that "religion is a state of mind" to the people who kill *infants* in
> >> Northern Ireland because their parents are one religion or another.
> >
> > It is still a state of mind. It is something they have chosen, think
> >about, discuss and act out. How violent they may or may not be has
> >nothing to do with it.
>
> Really? So, the infants chose to be Protestants? How can we be sure that they
> had all the comprehension of what their choice of religion would mean?
I wasn't talking about the infants. I'm talking about the adults. It is
a choice they made, act out, etc. etc. etc. The children are the
unfortunate collateral damage from a bigoted war. In my mind they don't
even have a religion yet, in spite of what the parents have to say about
it.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> > opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> > but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> > Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> > same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>
> You will have to excuse me if I lean towards the findings of a more
> established body such as the American Psychological Association as opposed to
> one man's ill-informed opinion.
Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:20:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
> >opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
> >but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
> >Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
> >same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>
> Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
> me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
> memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
I chose. And as for you, I have no clue. I'm not fugging omnicient. But
I can ask the same of you, can you get up in my skull and prove what
exactly made me het? Bet you can't either. If you cannot, then you are
no more right than I am. And I am no more wrong than you are. It's
called a "draw."
> Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
> life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
> ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
> friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
> sign me up.
What? Where was this in the conversation? Man some of y'all are going
off on some strange tangents. I'm not even going to touch this stuff.
From here on out I'm only covering the situation as it relates to
Sparky's specific situation. The rest you'll have to duke it out with
yourselves.
LancerAdvancd iBuck
than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
>always right.
And this compares badly to to the track record of the common public how?
ICAW
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> >I think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has more
> than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
> >always right.
>
> And this compares badly to to the track record of the common public how?
You have a point, and I will not disagree. To tie the two together :
We're all human and capable of error.
TT
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>>> Gay is still something up in your mind. You can choose to be otherwise.
>> >Just like men want to run around and cheat on their wives but choose not
>> >to. What you wish to be and what you decide to be can be two separate
>> >items.
>>
>> Let's clarify whether you're talking about "gay" or "homosexual".
>
> You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
>on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
>never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
No, it makes a huge difference. If you're saying that people could "choose not
to be gay", and you're defining "gay" as "swishing down the street and calling
everyone 'Hon'", then you're probably right. If you're defining it as "sexual
and relational attraction to the same gender", then you have a lot of proof to
produce, and you can start with what I wrote below.
>> If you are a straight male, make a conscious attempt to go one week without
>> being at all sexually attracted to a female. Not whether or not to have sex
>> with them, but whether or not you are attracted. Then report back with your
>> achievement.
>
> So if I want to kill people but choose not to I'm still a killer? You
>are not what the "devil"* on your shoulder tells you that you want to
>do, you are what you consciously choose to be. It is still a mind set.
>It is something that you as a person chose. It is nothing like being
>born black.
> And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
>questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
>their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
>;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
>assumed wrong then excuse me).
So you were presented with the choice at one point? You could have totally
reconfigured yourself to be sexually turned on by naked males? How so? What
were the circumstances of the presentation of the choice? Who made the
presentation? Was the fact that you would be publicly ridiculed and stood a
decent chance of being killed merely for your orientation made clear to you at
the time?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
>agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
>think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
>more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
>always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
Yes, but you have to provide some proof that shows that you've done more
psychosocial research than they have, and publish some of your findings. "I'm
right because I say so" isn't a whole lot of proof.
Blackberry
>
> No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
>women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
>apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
>subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
>about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
>guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
>are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
>men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
Who cares what is "the norm" and what isn't? You're talking psychology. You're
saying people choose to be gay but don't choose to be black. Who would know
better if they chose it or not -- gay men or you? You say that you know better,
so prove it.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:20:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
>> >
>> > I appreciate your attempt to bring some other information than our
>> >opinions into this matter, I read the portion of the article in question
>> >but I must disagree. It is a choice. Just like the cheating example.
>> >Many men want to but don't. They chose not to cheat. And it is in the
>> >same realm of sexuality, so it's a fair comparison.
>>
>> Prove when I chose to be bi. Provide evidence of who presented the choice to
>> me, what my options were, and why I chose the way I did, because I have *no*
>> memory of such a thing. Since you know that I chose it, provide proof.
>
> I chose. And as for you, I have no clue. I'm not fugging omnicient. But
>I can ask the same of you, can you get up in my skull and prove what
>exactly made me het? Bet you can't either. If you cannot, then you are
>no more right than I am. And I am no more wrong than you are. It's
>called a "draw."
That's fine, but you're saying that your draw is worth more than my draw, or
anyone else's. You say you know I chose it, so prove it or withdraw it. Saying
that you chose it is perfectly valid but applies to you only, so you need to
stop implying that it applies to everyone else.
Every single gay or bi person that I have talked to about it (100 or so at rough
guess) did not choose it. Are you saying that they are lying or just deluded?
>> Also, wouldn't it be a form of emotional child abuse to force such a
>> life-changing decision on children who can't possibly know the full
>> ramifications of their choice -- that they might be outcast by family and
>>friends, told by society that they are worthless, even driven to suicide? Ooh,
>> sign me up.
>
> What? Where was this in the conversation? Man some of y'all are going
>off on some strange tangents. I'm not even going to touch this stuff.
>From here on out I'm only covering the situation as it relates to
>Sparky's specific situation. The rest you'll have to duke it out with
>yourselves.
You said it was a choice, so provide some examples of the choice, provide some
of the documents that are presented to prepubescent children when the choice is
given to them to make. Obviously, there is no such thing.
Hannah Kincaid
(And I'm still pestering the Marxrat for that political primer, you know how
hard it is to motivate these Canadians... ;) )
Frances Kathleen Moffatt <dv...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9sotcc$sd4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Immoral? Nah. I just feel sorry for you - there are so many cool people
> out there, it seems a shame to cut yourself off from some of them because
> their criteria for "who I'm attracted to" doesn't match yours.
>
> Gingercat
Jim Hall
>I'm not blasting
>you here, but you have made an error in judgement for assuming that was
>my intention.
I'm not calling you a fool, here, but ...
There was no error made. I stated the obvious implications of what you had
written. If that disturbs you, be more careful with what you write.
Farlo =)
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > You and I both know if we take the time to try and reach an agreement
> >on the difference and similarities of the above terms this thread will
> >never end. Let's leave that aspect of this argument alone.
>
> No, it makes a huge difference. If you're saying that people could "choose not
> to be gay", and you're defining "gay" as "swishing down the street and calling
> everyone 'Hon'", then you're probably right. If you're defining it as "sexual
> and relational attraction to the same gender", then you have a lot of proof to
> produce, and you can start with what I wrote below.
You underestimate how many times I've been in arguments about "gayness"
and "homosexuality." I'm not going there. It's a multi-day, multi-week
flamewar waiting to happen. I'm not up for that today. And if you find
this upsetting then there's nothing I can do about it. We're deviating
waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the path of what this thread began with.
> > And to answer your question there was a point in my life that I
> >questioned my sexuality and I made my choice. I chase women. To each
> >their own, and ain't nothing better than... well... let's no go there
> >;-) I'm of the mind you don't want to hear about it. (and if I have
> >assumed wrong then excuse me).
>
> So you were presented with the choice at one point? You could have totally
> reconfigured yourself to be sexually turned on by naked males? How so? What
> were the circumstances of the presentation of the choice? Who made the
> presentation? Was the fact that you would be publicly ridiculed and stood a
> decent chance of being killed merely for your orientation made clear to you at
> the time?
Pardon my french but the specific details are none of your damn
business. I made a conscious choice. Deal with it. Does it mess up your
argument? Too bad.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:20:34 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> > Ill formed or you just don't agree? Drop the pretense. You just don't
> >agree. Which by all means, you have a right to. But who made them god? I
> >think several centuries of stupidity from the academic community has
> >more than proven having a title and an alumni doesn't make you smart or
> >always right. At the end you are right or wrong.
>
> Yes, but you have to provide some proof that shows that you've done more
> psychosocial research than they have, and publish some of your findings. "I'm
> right because I say so" isn't a whole lot of proof.
And where the hell did I say that? I spoke my mind, you don't have to
agree. I don't need the permissions of some white coats to speak my
mind, and I certainly don't need yours to contradict theirs. I thought
the matter out. If you don't agree it doesn't make me my opinion "ill
formed." Ill formed would be an opinion crafted out of hand and out of
ignorance. Mine is neither.
Are you a Christian? You aren't?*1 So what do you think about PHD
carrying biblical scholars who thing you've trodden down the path of
ignorance and sin? Are they right? Did you have to read 8 of their
books, write and publish a "finding" to prove that you've just made up
your own damn mind independantly?
If you lived about 20(?) years ago, would you be so hard behind those
same set of white coats when they still believed that being gay was a
psychological illness? Would your have to read 8 of their books and
publish a "finding" to justify your opinion that it isn't?
Do you depend on PHD holders to make up your mind on all subjects or is
it just not okay to think independantly when the topics is
homosexuality?
TT
*1 Hypothetical
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 01:18:23 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
> >women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
> >apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
> >subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
> >about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
> >guys. Unless you have some statistics handy that prove heterosexual guys
> >are some kind of minority, they are "the norm." If the #s flip and gay
> >men outnumber het men, then gays would be "the norm."
>
> Who cares what is "the norm" and what isn't? You're talking psychology. You're
> saying people choose to be gay but don't choose to be black.
You find someone that was born white and suddenly became black. Or vica
versa. Michael Jackson doesn't count.
> Who would know
> better if they chose it or not -- gay men or you? You say that you know better,
> so prove it.
I chose to be het. Deal with it. If you don't know why you chose
whatever you chose that's an issue that only you can deal with. Can you
provide proof positive there's something that made me het? It sure as
hell isn't peer pressure because I'm a witch (another choice I made) and
my religion isn't winning any popularity contests right now.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
You have misread, that is entirely on you. Again, I made clear that it
was the concept of a het guy being bothered by a board where the
prominent piece of discussion was matters related to homosexuality. I
separated Sparky somewhere in the first few paragraphs. You should have
taken that to heart and cleared the nitty gritty details out your RAM.
Again, not blasting you.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
nothing personal against you in this matter. Just wanted to clear that
matter up before things got too heated.
TT
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> You underestimate how many times I've been in arguments about "gayness"
>and "homosexuality." I'm not going there. It's a multi-day, multi-week
>flamewar waiting to happen. I'm not up for that today. And if you find
>this upsetting then there's nothing I can do about it. We're deviating
>waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the path of what this thread began with.
Why did you bring it up to begin with then? If you're not prepared to discuss
it in a public forum, don't *post* it to a public forum.
> Pardon my french but the specific details are none of your damn
>business. I made a conscious choice. Deal with it. Does it mess up your
>argument? Too bad.
Unfortunately, it's your argument that it messes up. You are claiming that all
humans in the universe chose their sexual orientation. You say you have chosen
yours. Millions say they haven't chosen theirs. Why are you right and they
wrong?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>> Yes, but you have to provide some proof that shows that you've done more
>>psychosocial research than they have, and publish some of your findings. "I'm
>> right because I say so" isn't a whole lot of proof.
>
> And where the hell did I say that? I spoke my mind, you don't have to
>agree. I don't need the permissions of some white coats to speak my
>mind, and I certainly don't need yours to contradict theirs. I thought
>the matter out. If you don't agree it doesn't make me my opinion "ill
>formed." Ill formed would be an opinion crafted out of hand and out of
>ignorance. Mine is neither.
> Are you a Christian? You aren't?*1 So what do you think about PHD
>carrying biblical scholars who thing you've trodden down the path of
>ignorance and sin? Are they right? Did you have to read 8 of their
>books, write and publish a "finding" to prove that you've just made up
>your own damn mind independantly?
> If you lived about 20(?) years ago, would you be so hard behind those
>same set of white coats when they still believed that being gay was a
>psychological illness? Would your have to read 8 of their books and
>publish a "finding" to justify your opinion that it isn't?
> Do you depend on PHD holders to make up your mind on all subjects or is
>it just not okay to think independantly when the topics is
>homosexuality?
Of course it is wonderful to think for onesself. If more people did, the world
would already start to be a better place. The issue is that you propose that
100% of humans who have ever lived, live now, or will ever live choose their
sexual orientation through some sort of philosophical weighing process. Now you
have to prove your proposal with facts in evidence.
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> I chose to be het. Deal with it. If you don't know why you chose
>whatever you chose that's an issue that only you can deal with. Can you
>provide proof positive there's something that made me het? It sure as
>hell isn't peer pressure because I'm a witch (another choice I made) and
>my religion isn't winning any popularity contests right now.
I can attempt to, though you seem reluctant to continue, so I don't know when
you'll just decide to stop answering.
There was a point at which you were not attracted to any gender, is that right?
Following that, did you make the choice right away, or did you ever find
yourself interested in someone or something of a specific (or unspecific)
gender? Did anyone catch your eye? Did you get an erection from imagining
something? Did you consider settling down in the future with a wife and kids?
If any of that happened, then you had an orientation. If it was your own gender
that turned you on, and you found females sexually icky, and then you switched
completely to straight and found all males just as icky, then you are the one
person I've met so far who did will themselves to change orientation and
*succeeded*. If there was or is still a little hint of interest in the other
gender, even if you never plan to act on it, then you're bi.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
before we get sidetracked too hard :
Warning for the anal retentive : Forget about Sparky & the fandom for
this arugment. This is all hypothetical. Sparky is going to be replaced
with "David" who is your average white, het dude, who enjoys talking
about sex.
Scenario A
Take ten white, het guys that are on a newsgroup talking about fishing
and sex. Some of them are looking for partners to engage in it with.
David is comfortable. 10 guys who have something in common with him.
Scenario B
Take ten black, het guys that are on a newsgroup talking about fishing
and sex. Some of them are looking for partners to engage in it with.
David is still comfortable. People are people.
Scanario C
Take ten gay girls that are on a newsgroup talking about fishing and
sex. Some of them are looking for partners to engage in it with.
David is comfortable. It's not a whole lot different than guys talking
about girls. They still discuss the things that turn them on and
"strangely" enough he has quite a few things in common. The discussion
is different and interesting. If anyone is uncomfortable, it would most
likely be because he made a move and they were completely uninterested.
Maybe even slighty offended that he should have known better. Who knows.
Scenario D
Take ten gay guys that are on a newsgroup talking about fishing and
sex. Some of them are looking for partners to engage in it with.
David is not interested in the group anymore. The talk about fishing is
alright but when the gay discussions and the gay sex discussions get
moving not only does he have nothing to contribute, but he doesn't want
to read it in the first place. He doesn't want to hear it. It's not his
thing. He might swing it if the fishing stuff is interesting but if sex
takes over he has no real reason to stay there.
So David leaves. Is he a bigot for excersizing his choice to not hang
around people he doesn't have much in common with? I do not believe so.
Everyone here excecutes a bias by hanging around people they like and
share things in common with and not hanging around people they don't.
Such is life.
The "heavy gay nature of the discussions didn't interest me" and "Oh my
gawd! Gay people! I need to hide!" aren't one and the same. Some of you
seem to be a bit homophobic-aphobic ;-) (Afraid of homophobes)
TT
Jim Hall
> You have misread, that is entirely on you.
What you write, that is entirely on you.
The onus is on the writer to write clearly,
it is not sufficient to edit after the fact.
Farlo
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Of course it is wonderful to think for onesself. If more people did, the world
> would already start to be a better place.
Hell yeah.
> The issue is that you propose that
> 100% of humans who have ever lived, live now, or will ever live choose their
> sexual orientation through some sort of philosophical weighing process. Now you
> have to prove your proposal with facts in evidence.
I only have myself to weigh in countermeasure of what others have said
as far as exact proof goes. I can ask a former girlfriend of mine
whether she's still bi or not. She definitly was at one point and I'm
fairly positive she has changed... I could be wrong! But I believe so.
Same said girlfriend of mine took a "psychology of sex" class up north,
near Vallejo, CA. I can't think of the name of the community college,
it's 10-20 miles north of Vallejo, in a smaller city. It wasn't Napa, it
was some other. Begins with an S or an L. In any case, in that
particular class it was taught that kids go through a questioning phase
where they are not only curious about "what this does?" (aka touchy
feely, sometimes masturbation) but they also question their sexuality. I
do not have the name of the book or author handy. I will ask.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:22:21 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> > You underestimate how many times I've been in arguments about "gayness"
> >and "homosexuality." I'm not going there. It's a multi-day, multi-week
> >flamewar waiting to happen. I'm not up for that today. And if you find
> >this upsetting then there's nothing I can do about it. We're deviating
> >waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the path of what this thread began with.
>
> Why did you bring it up to begin with then? If you're not prepared to discuss
> it in a public forum, don't *post* it to a public forum.
This argument is supposed to be about whether it's bigoted for a het
guy to pull out of a group when homosexual topics or attitudes go beyond
what he has interest in hanging around for. By all means threads mutate
and change, and I can't control that. But I can control my inolvement in
said threads and I'm certainly not setting myself up for days upon days
of flaming.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:32:46 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> > I chose to be het. Deal with it. If you don't know why you chose
> >whatever you chose that's an issue that only you can deal with. Can you
> >provide proof positive there's something that made me het? It sure as
> >hell isn't peer pressure because I'm a witch (another choice I made) and
> >my religion isn't winning any popularity contests right now.
>
> I can attempt to, though you seem reluctant to continue, so I don't know when
> you'll just decide to stop answering.
You are getting the short end of the stick, I will admit that.
> There was a point at which you were not attracted to any gender, is that right?
>
> Following that, did you make the choice right away, [snip]
I'll keep it fairly simple because you're running up against stuff I
***NEVER*** discuss in public. Hell, you're "lucky" I brought up the
fact I even had to think about it. It's pretty much a hard rule in "het
culture" (hahaha) that you don't admit things like that, regardless of
what the truth is.
Simply put : Mild period of confusion, sat down, thought about it.
Thought about it some more. Didn't make up my mind immediatly, certainly
not right away and I did have "shake some thoughts loose" before I made
up my mind as to what I really liked and I haven't looked back since.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
I was clear.
TT
Blackberry
I have no dislike for anyone. I'm perfectly willing to drop it or take it to
email too.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 04:44:19 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > By the way Blackberry I'm arguing pretty strongly here but I have
> >nothing personal against you in this matter. Just wanted to clear that
> >matter up before things got too heated.
>
> I have no dislike for anyone. I'm perfectly willing to drop it or take it to
> email too.
No need to go to e-mail unless the group is sick of the discussion.
Besides I'm a fan of public debate. It's like a sport to me.
TT
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> I only have myself to weigh in countermeasure of what others have said
>as far as exact proof goes. I can ask a former girlfriend of mine
>whether she's still bi or not. She definitly was at one point and I'm
>fairly positive she has changed... I could be wrong! But I believe so.
> Same said girlfriend of mine took a "psychology of sex" class up north,
>near Vallejo, CA. I can't think of the name of the community college,
>it's 10-20 miles north of Vallejo, in a smaller city. It wasn't Napa, it
>was some other. Begins with an S or an L. In any case, in that
>particular class it was taught that kids go through a questioning phase
>where they are not only curious about "what this does?" (aka touchy
>feely, sometimes masturbation) but they also question their sexuality. I
>do not have the name of the book or author handy. I will ask.
It's pretty widely taught, as far as I know. I agree with that. However,
questioning and exploring is not the same thing as completely and utterly
reversing all of your brain's programming. Without even a conscious process, a
person sees something and becomes sexually interested. They may not even know
it until they notice its side effects (more obvious for some males). That's
what I'm talking about and that's what is known as "sexual orientation".
Exploring with a buddy when you're young is not the same thing as finding women
parts icky and wanting to settle down with Tom Cruise.
Blackberry
>
>>Why did you bring it up to begin with then? If you're not prepared to discuss
>> it in a public forum, don't *post* it to a public forum.
>
> This argument is supposed to be about whether it's bigoted for a het
>guy to pull out of a group when homosexual topics or attitudes go beyond
>what he has interest in hanging around for. By all means threads mutate
>and change, and I can't control that. But I can control my inolvement in
>said threads and I'm certainly not setting myself up for days upon days
>of flaming.
Threads do drift. We can start a brand new one if that will make it make more
sense for you. But this kind of argument is used a lot by people who feel
backed into a corner by the *current* topic under discussion and need some way
out of it rather than admit that there might be a hole in their logic, so it can
sound disingenuous. Do you want to start a new thread? I changed the subject
already a long time ago.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> It's pretty widely taught, as far as I know. I agree with that. However,
> questioning and exploring is not the same thing as completely and utterly
> reversing all of your brain's programming. Without even a conscious process, a
> person sees something and becomes sexually interested. They may not even know
> it until they notice its side effects (more obvious for some males). That's
> what I'm talking about and that's what is known as "sexual orientation".
>
> Exploring with a buddy when you're young is not the same thing as finding women
> parts icky and wanting to settle down with Tom Cruise.
Should have posted this sucker earlier since it relates to the
discussion. Do you know if they've done the same for homosexual men?
http://web.realcities.com/content/rc/health/pchealth/philly/1956630134.htm
Ben Raccoon
"Tlalocelotl Tlatoani" <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote
>
> Pardon my french but the specific details are none of your damn
> business. I made a conscious choice. Deal with it. Does it mess up your
Ummm, if I were you, I'd quit while I was ahead. You're just digging
yourself deeper.
--
www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>> Following that, did you make the choice right away, [snip]
>
> I'll keep it fairly simple because you're running up against stuff I
>***NEVER*** discuss in public. Hell, you're "lucky" I brought up the
>fact I even had to think about it. It's pretty much a hard rule in "het
>culture" (hahaha) that you don't admit things like that, regardless of
>what the truth is.
> Simply put : Mild period of confusion, sat down, thought about it.
>Thought about it some more. Didn't make up my mind immediatly, certainly
>not right away and I did have "shake some thoughts loose" before I made
>up my mind as to what I really liked and I haven't looked back since.
That's fine, but you still snipped out *my* point.
Was there a point at which you were solidly, definitely attracted to males? The
sight of a "hot guy" or "hot furguy" would send you reeling with thoughts of
sticking things in places, of waking up next to a snuggled-up masculine form?
And, at that time, were you disgusted by thoughts of sex with females?
If you were attracted to both genders, then you were bisexual. If that's true,
are you actually still attracted to both genders and are actively suppressing
any such thoughts as soon as they come up, or have they gone completely?
If they've gone completely, you'd be the first documented case of sexual
orientation being *honestly* changed by willpower. ("Honestly" meaning not by
self-delusion or shock therapy.)
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:40:26 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >>Why did you bring it up to begin with then? If you're not prepared to discuss
> >> it in a public forum, don't *post* it to a public forum.
> >
> > This argument is supposed to be about whether it's bigoted for a het
> >guy to pull out of a group when homosexual topics or attitudes go beyond
> >what he has interest in hanging around for. By all means threads mutate
> >and change, and I can't control that. But I can control my inolvement in
> >said threads and I'm certainly not setting myself up for days upon days
> >of flaming.
>
> Threads do drift. We can start a brand new one if that will make it make more
> sense for you. But this kind of argument is used a lot by people who feel
> backed into a corner by the *current* topic under discussion and need some way
> out of it rather than admit that there might be a hole in their logic, so it can
> sound disingenuous.
Given that can be the case. Not so in this one. I've been down this. I
had a four week flamewar going on this kind of topic, that's why I'm
shying away from getting too deep off into it. I know what kind of work
it takes to firefight for four weeks long. It isn't all that fun when
you think about it.
> Do you want to start a new thread? I changed the subject
> already a long time ago.
You did? I didn't see it. Not necessary, this is fine.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> "Tlalocelotl Tlatoani" <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Pardon my french but the specific details are none of your damn
> > business. I made a conscious choice. Deal with it. Does it mess up your
>
> Ummm, if I were you, I'd quit while I was ahead. You're just digging
> yourself deeper.
Brother, you haven't seen deeper! I held off an entire f---ing
newsgroup (large one too) for four weeks by my damn self with no damn
help on something related to this current subject. I know where I'm
treading, and I know what I'm saying.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:45:26 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> Following that, did you make the choice right away, [snip]
> >
> > I'll keep it fairly simple because you're running up against stuff I
> >***NEVER*** discuss in public. Hell, you're "lucky" I brought up the
> >fact I even had to think about it. It's pretty much a hard rule in "het
> >culture" (hahaha) that you don't admit things like that, regardless of
> >what the truth is.
> > Simply put : Mild period of confusion, sat down, thought about it.
> >Thought about it some more. Didn't make up my mind immediatly, certainly
> >not right away and I did have "shake some thoughts loose" before I made
> >up my mind as to what I really liked and I haven't looked back since.
>
> That's fine, but you still snipped out *my* point.
The point I snipped out was the point you're not going to get a
straight answer on in e-mail or in post. Only if we were in the dessert
dying of starvation and thirst would you stand a chance to get an
answer. There's only one person breathing that has the answer to your
question and it's staying that way. Everyone has rules that they follow,
and I follow a set of rules of my own making.
> If they've gone completely, you'd be the first documented case of sexual
> orientation being *honestly* changed by willpower. ("Honestly" meaning not by
> self-delusion or shock therapy.)
I do not believe that I am delusion and I certainly haven't gone the
shock therapy route. I will not get any straighter answer out of me than
this. If you want to believe what I'm saying, fine. Disbelieve, so be
it. You are welcome to believe either and I will not beef with your
choice.
TT
Ben Raccoon
>
> Brother, you haven't seen deeper! I held off an entire f---ing
> newsgroup (large one too) for four weeks by my damn self with no damn
> help on something related to this current subject. I know where I'm
> treading, and I know what I'm saying.
<shrugs> Your choice, after all. Though, you might want some salt for your
other foot.
--
www.furnation.com/ben_raccoon
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
>
> So there ya go. One anecdote (mine) versus another (yours) :)
Fair enough.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
?? Okay explain that one.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> are actively suppressing
> any such thoughts as soon as they come up, or have they gone completely?
BTW, such thoughts that I had once are gone completely. I will answer
that much.
One other thing that I will concede to you : I do not believe a
person's "choice" is so easy as "Hey, I think I'll be gay today!" I do
not believe it is a wholly easy, wholly flip floppaple choice. And I
don't think anyoone outside of themself can really see it. Since kids
are raised to be het... for the most part anyway... could someone be
raised to be gay? I think that is possible. But that would be one hell
of a twisted scientific experiment to pull so we'll never see the answer
to that one.
TT
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
If you where clear why where you missunderstood?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> I have 4 friends on ICQ that are gay. We talk all the time. They just know
> I'm not, and they don't discuss the subject. They don't try to talk about
> some hot guy they saw, or try to pick me up. I don't slam them for being
> gay, I simply let them know my limits, and we're cool.
[...]
> The reason I brought this up, is that the story is almost always different
> here. A scenario usually goes something like this:
>
> --------------------------
> Me: "Hello."
> Other: "Hi." (hug)
> Me: "Heh...Don't do that..." (peels him off)
> Other: "Sorry..."
> Me: "It's okay...I'm just not like that..."
> Other: "Oh I get it."
> Me: "What?"
> Other: "You have a thing against gays."
> Me: "No, I have no problem with you being gay, I just don't personally like
> it."
> Other: "You know, there's nothing wrong with being gay..."
> Me: "I know. I just-"
> Other: "You really should try to be more accepting of other people."
> Me: "I am accepting! I just don't like it!"
> Other: "You're going to live a sad life if you don't start accepting people
> for who they are..."
> Me: "Hello? Is anyone listening? I don't care if you're gay or not, I just
> don't want you touching me or being gay to me! Can't you understand?"
> Other: "You've got some real problems dude..."
>
> -------------------------
Hold on your not antygay. Your antylosser who doesn't respect
anouthers personal space. I can dig that.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 05:57:26 GMT, Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
> <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jim Hall wrote:
> >>
> >> Tlalocelotl Tlatoani wrote:
> >>
> >> > You have misread, that is entirely on you.
> >>
> >> What you write, that is entirely on you.
> >> The onus is on the writer to write clearly,
> >> it is not sufficient to edit after the fact.
> >
> > I was clear.
>
> If you where clear why where you missunderstood?
The reader walked in with the understanding the entire rant was about
Sparky and the furry fandom and did not properly disassociate the fandom
from the general discussion of theory. If I write something clearly and
you misunderstand it because you read it too fast is that my fault as
well? A sharp mind is required when reading ;-)
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> anouthers personal space. I can dig that.
Bravo!
*hands David a cigar*
TT
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Blackberry wrote:
>>
>> You can't choose not to be homosexual, just like you can't choose not to be
>> black.
>
> But it is still a state of mind. And it is something that you think
> about, and discuss, and act out in some way or another. Black has no
> meaning until someone tries to impose one on you.
Well existence is at its core a state of mind.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
> women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
> apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
> subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
> about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
> guys.
If you are a furry fan you have an interest in furries. That right
there is somthing that sets you apart from the "norm". That makes the
way you think, and what kind of subjects you talk about diffrent from
the "norm". And by the "norm" I mean the majority of people.
Blackberry
>
> Should have posted this sucker earlier since it relates to the
>discussion. Do you know if they've done the same for homosexual men?
>
>http://web.realcities.com/content/rc/health/pchealth/philly/1956630134.htm
I don't know, but it certainly was enlightening:
"This is hard-core circuitry," Breiter said. "This is not a conditioned
response."
Thus, the expert in the article you cited disagrees with you. It's
pre-programmed in very early development; it's not something you just decide to
condition yourself to.
Let's take a poll of everyone on this thread:
Did you choose your sexual orientation?
- Yes
- No
- Don't know
My answer would be "No".
Blackberry
How do you explain the fact that a great majority of men who grow up to be gay
are raised in very heterosexual and anti-gay environments?
How do you also explain *why* someone would make the choice? Believe me, I have
wished, hoped, even prayed at times just to be straight, so I wouldn't have to
be persecuted and hated all my life. What's the benefit to being gay?
Blackberry
>
>[...]
>If you are a furry fan you have an interest in furries. That right
>there is somthing that sets you apart from the "norm". That makes the
>way you think, and what kind of subjects you talk about diffrent from
>the "norm". And by the "norm" I mean the majority of people.
Good example. Tlaloceotl, did you choose to be interested in furries? I know
that I didn't. I discovered both at the same time, in fact, when I discovered
that my first sexual thoughts were about Bugs Bunny, and not in a dress.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> <redk...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > No, that's bull--t. If you are a gay man you have no vested interest in
> > women, your interest is in men. That right there is something sets you
> > apart from the "norm." This makes the way you think, and what kind of
> > subjects (at least as far as sexuality and sexual interest go) you talk
> > about different from the "norm." And by the "norm" I mean majority of
> > guys.
>
> If you are a furry fan you have an interest in furries. That right
> there is somthing that sets you apart from the "norm". That makes the
> way you think, and what kind of subjects you talk about diffrent from
> the "norm". And by the "norm" I mean the majority of people.
Yes, you are correct.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 06:42:12 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> > Should have posted this sucker earlier since it relates to the
> >discussion. Do you know if they've done the same for homosexual men?
> >
> >http://web.realcities.com/content/rc/health/pchealth/philly/1956630134.htm
>
> I don't know, but it certainly was enlightening:
>
> "This is hard-core circuitry," Breiter said. "This is not a conditioned
> response."
>
> Thus, the expert in the article you cited disagrees with you. It's
> pre-programmed in very early development; it's not something you just decide to
> condition yourself to.
Ah, but have they tested homosexual men? You're only getting half proof
for your theory out of this. If they test homosexual men and they have
the same response what then?
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:30:41 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >If you are a furry fan you have an interest in furries. That right
> >there is somthing that sets you apart from the "norm". That makes the
> >way you think, and what kind of subjects you talk about diffrent from
> >the "norm". And by the "norm" I mean the majority of people.
>
> Good example. Tlaloceotl, did you choose to be interested in furries?
Not particularly.
Do you remember when you chose that killing people just because they
look at you funny is wrong? Or are you constantly denying that voice and
your true nature is a killer?
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> How do you explain the fact that a great majority of men who grow up to be gay
> are raised in very heterosexual and anti-gay environments?
I'd have to get to actually know someone that is the case and get deep
off in their history and what not to even venture a guess. At this point
I have no explanation for you. The closest I can come up with is the
religion example. Look at the people that have been raised to be X where
Y was evil and sick, live in a X community and chose to be Y instead.
Talk to some people about their faith. Some of these Christian
fundamentalists are a good example. There was no real logic in their
choice. They just started believing. Is it they're gullible or is it
something that just automatically clicked on? Is it there was a though
process they put in the back of their minds because if they thought
about it too hard they'd doubt themself? Like the "hell" stories scare
them so much they guilt themself into believing and deny that's what it
was?
For instance, being raised by your mother is a heterosexual
envirornment. No problem there. But there may have been some subtle
influences on you* growing up that the casual observer would not
recognize. Let's say your* mother talked about guys all the time. You
had a bunch of sisters who you spent a great deal of time with. Your
school had a majority of girls and you just didn't happen to have any
guy friends and you had all girl friends. That effects what you hear and
possibly what think. Notice I said possibly. I'm jumping off the deep
end with that scenario to a degree, but the point is there's nothing in
that scenario trying to make the boy in question like other boys. And
I'm sure there are gay guys that were raised by guys, lived with guys,
played with guys, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
*Not you personally
> How do you also explain *why* someone would make the choice?
Ditto, somewhat. Lots of guys want to cheat. Is that wired into the
brain as well? Some guys get heavily tempted. If a guy does it, and runs
back to his wife saying he can't help it was hard wired into his brain,
is that a sufficient excuse? Eating more than you want. Spending more
than you need to spend. Running around with a machine gun killing people
at random. These are all the actions that take place when you listen to
a little voice in your head. Where do you distinguish the difference
between this phantom like "wiring" that causes someone to be gay and the
same thing wich causes someone to cheat, sloth, kill, etc. etc. etc.
Where is the difference? Where is the line that separates them. Is
Sticking to the cheating one, because that's a sexuality issues. Are
there guys who cave in? Sure. Are there guys who don't? Sure. Are there
guys who decided cheating is a bad, bad thing and completely put it out
of their mind? Sure. Some people think about these temptations harder
than others. Some people who give in now will give it up years from now
and never look back. So in the context of all that perhaps they just
went with one voice on their shoulder as opposed to the other. Isn't
that making a choice?
And as far as you personally go, was it you didn't want to be gay
because you didn't like being gay, or was your negative reaction
entirely about societal response to what you would be?
All right (dragging out the big guns) what about zoophiles? Was there
something wired into them that made them what they are? Or did they just
go weird in the head and make weird ass choices?
TT
Blackberry
>
>[...]
> Ah, but have they tested homosexual men? You're only getting half proof
>for your theory out of this. If they test homosexual men and they have
>the same response what then?
So, straight people did not choose their orientation but gay and bi people did?
Blackberry
You're saying that a murderer is a murderer because they actively murder? Or
are you saying that anyone who has ever thought, "I'm gonna kill that guy," is
just as much a murderer as Richard Ramirez?
Being homosexual is not the same as having sex. For instance, I was
bi-leaning-toward-gay a *long* time before I had sex -- I was about 8 when I
fell in love with Bugs Bunny; I was about 10 when I discovered masturbation; I
was about 13 when I knew I was more attracted to males than to females; I was 24
when I first had sex.
If you're saying that one must have sex in order for one to have a sexual
orientation, then no straight virgin can ever be straight, no matter how many
torn issues of Hustler are under their mattresses.
Blackberry
>
>Blackberry wrote:
>>
>>How do you explain the fact that a great majority of men who grow up to be gay
>> are raised in very heterosexual and anti-gay environments?
>
> I'd have to get to actually know someone that is the case and get deep
>off in their history and what not to even venture a guess. At this point
>I have no explanation for you. The closest I can come up with is the
>religion example. Look at the people that have been raised to be X where
>Y was evil and sick, live in a X community and chose to be Y instead.
>Talk to some people about their faith. Some of these Christian
>fundamentalists are a good example. There was no real logic in their
>choice. They just started believing. Is it they're gullible or is it
>something that just automatically clicked on? Is it there was a though
>process they put in the back of their minds because if they thought
>about it too hard they'd doubt themself? Like the "hell" stories scare
>them so much they guilt themself into believing and deny that's what it
It's because everyone around them was, so they had to become that too, or it
osmosed its way into their brain.
>> How do you also explain *why* someone would make the choice?
>
> Ditto, somewhat. Lots of guys want to cheat. Is that wired into the
>brain as well? Some guys get heavily tempted. If a guy does it, and runs
>back to his wife saying he can't help it was hard wired into his brain,
>is that a sufficient excuse? Eating more than you want. Spending more
>than you need to spend. Running around with a machine gun killing people
>at random. These are all the actions that take place when you listen to
>a little voice in your head. Where do you distinguish the difference
>between this phantom like "wiring" that causes someone to be gay and the
>same thing wich causes someone to cheat, sloth, kill, etc. etc. etc.
>Where is the difference? Where is the line that separates them. Is
>Sticking to the cheating one, because that's a sexuality issues. Are
>there guys who cave in? Sure. Are there guys who don't? Sure. Are there
>guys who decided cheating is a bad, bad thing and completely put it out
>of their mind? Sure. Some people think about these temptations harder
>than others. Some people who give in now will give it up years from now
>and never look back. So in the context of all that perhaps they just
>went with one voice on their shoulder as opposed to the other. Isn't
>that making a choice?
Cheating on your spouse is something you do on impulse, because you're not
getting something out of your relationship. Being gay is like being
left-handed; you don't "be left-handed" on impulse -- you either are or you
aren't. You can *train* yourself to use your left hand for things, but that
doesn't go back and rewrite history so that you were born left-handed.
Likewise, you can be non-gay/bi and have sex with the same gender, but that
doesn't make you gay/bi.
> And as far as you personally go, was it you didn't want to be gay
>because you didn't like being gay, or was your negative reaction
>entirely about societal response to what you would be?
I didn't want to be gay because my friends all disliked gays, my society taught
me that gays were second class humans, and I really didn't want to be another
hate crime statistic/smudge on the sidewalk simply for *existing*. I wished, I
prayed, I tried purging my mind of all sexual thoughts... it would not change.
> All right (dragging out the big guns) what about zoophiles? Was there
>something wired into them that made them what they are? Or did they just
>go weird in the head and make weird ass choices?
Being one and being in love with one, yes, I can safely say that it is not
chosen; it is pre-existing. People have tried to explain that homosexuality is
caused by "nurture", but they've never been able to pin down any proof. The
"single mother" theory is disproven by so many cases that it's useless as a
theory.
How would nurturing account for zoophilia, then? I was raised by Clydesdales?
If I tell you that I had no dogs as pets while growing up, you'll just say that
it was the lack of strong animal presence that triggered it. If my mate tells
you that it was the presence of dogs as pets while growing up, you'll just say
that it was the wealth of strong animal presence that triggered it.
Cray Drygu
news:3BF18112...@sprintmail.com:
> Do you remember when you chose that killing people just because
> they
> look at you funny is wrong? Or are you constantly denying that voice
> and your true nature is a killer?
Mu.
I'm going to have to agree with Blackberry here -- I can't answer your
question appropriately, because there's a flaw in the logic behind it.
A "killer" is defined by his actions -- once you have killed someone,
you are a killer. If you have not killed anyone, you are not a killer.
A homosexual, on the other hand, is not defined by his actions, but by
his desires -- an attraction to the same sex, rather than the opposite.
If a man grows to be 30 years old, marries a woman, has 2.4 kids and 1.5
cars and a big white house with a picket fence around it, but would
rather curl up in bed with some gorgeous hunk than try for that last 0.6
of a kid with his wife, then that man -- desipte his heterosexual
appearance -- is a gay man.
--
Cray Drygu
cray [at] org
indecisions <dot>
"It's all about the Pentiums, baby!"
-- Weird Al
Sparky
This discussion kinda split off into four seperate conversations, and I
haven't got the time or energy to sit and try to make sense of it all
now...I don't think I even want to now...(sigh)
(throws a few crackers to the pigeons and backs off)
Sparky. ^..^
Apparently...yeah...
Jim Hall
>The reader walked in with the understanding the entire rant was about
>Sparky and the furry fandom and did not properly disassociate the fandom
>from the general discussion of theory.
Is that so? I think not.
>If I write something clearly and
>you misunderstand it because you read it too fast is that my fault as
>well?
Clearly, what you wrote and what you thought that you wrote are seperate
items. I read pretty well.
>A sharp mind is required when reading ;-)
That's a problem for you. I was too easily able to see your perspective on
the issue at hand, and infer your obvious biases. You really need readers
that are slower, or willing to swallow any premise without examining it
critically. Ideally, your target audience is under seventeen, and someone
who already trusts you. If you want to write to the rest of us, I suggest
making better arguments that do not lay out your prejudices so clearly.
Farlo =)
Jim Hall
> Warning for the anal retentive : Forget about Sparky & the fandom for
>this arugment. This is all hypothetical. Sparky is going to be replaced
>with "David" who is your average white, het dude, who enjoys talking
>about sex.
"Let's have another hypothetical situation, with "Zuzu". Zuzu is an
imaginary, generally het male with bisexual tendencies, for the sake of
this argument."
I would use "Zuzu" to blow down TT's House of Cards, but is it really
necessessary to drag a reader through all that?
Probably not.
Farlo =:)
Jim Hall
>Given that can be the case. Not so in this one. I've been down this. I
>had a four week flamewar going on this kind of topic,
Prior history.
Farlo =:)
Jim Hall
>One other thing that I will concede to you : I do not believe a
>person's "choice" is so easy as "Hey, I think I'll be gay today!"
It really would depend on the Gay, now wouldn't it?
Any Gay with a sense of humor, or a Gay who does daily affirmations of who
they are, may indeed start a day with this phrase.
Farlo =:)
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:51:48 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> > Ah, but have they tested homosexual men? You're only getting half proof
> >for your theory out of this. If they test homosexual men and they have
> >the same response what then?
>
> So, straight people did not choose their orientation but gay and bi people did?
The article says that there's a non-conditioned area in the brain
responding when a het guys sees a girl. If they test homosexual guys
looking at women and their brain reacts the same way the het dude's
brain does, then the test data is basically saying guys are
automatically attracted to women. Course this is all hypothetical until
they actually do the test. It would definitly strike your theory down if
you believed the test data was accurate. And as far as your question
there goes... well something must have kept this species going. Animals
that forget how to reproduce tend to go extinct =^^=;;
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:23:17 GMT, Tlalocelotl wrote:
> >
> >Blackberry wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:30:41 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >If you are a furry fan you have an interest in furries. That right
> >> >there is somthing that sets you apart from the "norm". That makes the
> >> >way you think, and what kind of subjects you talk about diffrent from
> >> >the "norm". And by the "norm" I mean the majority of people.
> >>
> >> Good example. Tlaloceotl, did you choose to be interested in furries?
> >
> > Not particularly.
> >
> > Do you remember when you chose that killing people just because they
> >look at you funny is wrong? Or are you constantly denying that voice and
> >your true nature is a killer?
>
> You're saying that a murderer is a murderer because they actively murder? Or
> are you saying that anyone who has ever thought, "I'm gonna kill that guy," is
> just as much a murderer as Richard Ramirez?
I'm using your logic and replacing words. Which is how this whole
thread got started when someone decided "black" was a suitable
substitute for being "gay."
What I am saying is you are what you choose to act out and be. No
matter how many times you may want to murder someone, you aren't a
murderer till you do it, or at the very least try. If you never act out
that violence you are not one. And as far as your specific example of
the straight virgin with the hustler mags, he's actually acting it out.
He just hasn't had the actual interaction yet. What about some of those
heavily religious monks that abstain from sex for the rest of their life
and force the "dirty" thoughts from their minds? Have they not become
asexual in the face of whatever they once were?
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> > I'd have to get to actually know someone that is the case and get deep
> >off in their history and what not to even venture a guess. At this point
> >I have no explanation for you. The closest I can come up with is the
> >religion example. Look at the people that have been raised to be X where
> >Y was evil and sick, live in a X community and chose to be Y instead.
> >Talk to some people about their faith. Some of these Christian
> >fundamentalists are a good example. There was no real logic in their
> >choice. They just started believing. Is it they're gullible or is it
> >something that just automatically clicked on? Is it there was a though
> >process they put in the back of their minds because if they thought
> >about it too hard they'd doubt themself? Like the "hell" stories scare
> >them so much they guilt themself into believing and deny that's what it
> >was? [...]
>
> It's because everyone around them was, so they had to become that too, or it
> osmosed its way into their brain.
Such can't account for all of them. Some of them were not Christians
before hand, will suddenly read the bible when they're 30 years old and
be a hard line believer for the rest of their life, in spite of each and
every logical argument that attacks their belief. I guess you haven't
met any like that. I have.
[[ SNIP CHEATING THREAD ]]
>
> Cheating on your spouse is something you do on impulse, because you're not
> getting something out of your relationship.
WHOA! You are not wrong, because the above definitly is the case at
least a significant part of that time. But what you have said is not
always true. Some dudes just want to f--- each and every woman they come
across. My girlfriend's father has had 10 kids by eight different women.
He just couldn't keep it in his pants, or rather he chose not to. Three
of his kids were born within 6 months of each other, and he was still
seeing all three mothers. And it's not as impuslive as you may think.
Sometimes it's like that desire to have something you've told yourself
you can't have. Like you're on a diet and you can't have a pizza all to
yourself. That particular idea will sit there and linger until you find
a way to deal with it. Trust me, I have these thoughts!!
> Being gay is like being
> left-handed; you don't "be left-handed" on impulse -- you either are or you
> aren't. You can *train* yourself to use your left hand for things, but that
> doesn't go back and rewrite history so that you were born left-handed.
> Likewise, you can be non-gay/bi and have sex with the same gender, but that
> doesn't make you gay/bi.
Actually I'm left handed, I don't know if you are but let me tell you
from personal experience you *can* make someone right handed. The school
system I went through did their damn best to teach all left handed kids
to use their right hands, most just went along. My mother came in and
raised hell for the teachers to leave me alone, so they did. Prior to
3rd grade I had beautiful printing, for a kid. Then they forced us to
learn cursive and write all of our homework in cursive. I'm in my
twenties and my printing has not looked good since that day. I can read
some Japanese. But if you ask me to read cursive I'll laugh at you. (you
may already know a great deal of the following but I'm laying down the
foundation for my point). The two sides of your brain control different
functions. The brain is like a muscle, the more you use it, the sharper
it is, the less you use it the weaker it becomes. I don't have a
scientific reason to say exactly why that is true but I know that it is.
Go talk to some of the elderly that stay active and compare them to the
bed ridden variety that go from a whole human being to a vegetable in
about three years. I watched my grandmother deteriorate like that. She
didn't play games, didn't read, didn't do anything. She didn't even want
friends. Three years later she couldn't even remember that I graduated
high school. She died a month later. Left and right handed aren't
ingrained into you, when you start to write you just pick a hand
(writing only requires one hand) and you go. Some kids are ambidexturous
because they haven't chosen a hand yet. Some people stay that way by
constantly switching. I was slightly ambidextrous for a while but
continuous use of my left, and discontinued use of my right killed that.
I was excersizing one half of my brain and not the other. I don't
believe this belongs in the same category as sexuality.
> The
> "single mother" theory is disproven by so many cases that it's useless as a
> theory.
Oh by no means am I saying that is the cause of each and every single
gay man. But the envirornment you are raised in effects who you are. If
we are raised by upright parents, we'll most likely be upright people.
If we're raised by criminal minded parents, there's going to be
something jacked up about our nature. I'm sure there are //some// gay
guys that can attribute who they are to that kind of envirornment.
> How would nurturing account for zoophilia, then? I was raised by Clydesdales?
> If I tell you that I had no dogs as pets while growing up, you'll just say that
> it was the lack of strong animal presence that triggered it. If my mate tells
> you that it was the presence of dogs as pets while growing up, you'll just say
> that it was the wealth of strong animal presence that triggered it.
Unrelated arguments, unless you assume I believed every gay guy was gay
because he was raised by his mother. I'm not that stupid, thank you ;-)
And I have no idea what would cause someone to be a zoophile.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> I think I'm just gonna go sit over here...
>
> This discussion kinda split off into four seperate conversations, and I
> haven't got the time or energy to sit and try to make sense of it all
> now...I don't think I even want to now...(sigh)
>
> (throws a few crackers to the pigeons and backs off)
LOFL!
And the sad thing four separate conversations basically run by two
people! HAhahahahahaa... oh boy.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
Zuzu wouldn't be bothered by Scenario A, B, C or D. And it doesn't
relate to the subject at hand. The subject at hand is someone a bigot if
they don't want to hang around a board where a larger portion of the
material was related to a sexuality that didn't interestet them and or
personally disgusted them. Being disgusted by TALK is different then
being disgusted by PEOPLE. "David" and Sparky were not disgusted by
PEOPLE, they were disgusted by TALK.
TT
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> Blackberry wrote:
> >
> > Being gay is like being
> > left-handed; you don't "be left-handed" on impulse -- you either are or you
> > aren't. You can *train* yourself to use your left hand for things, but that
> > doesn't go back and rewrite history so that you were born left-handed.
> > Likewise, you can be non-gay/bi and have sex with the same gender, but that
> > doesn't make you gay/bi.
>
> believe this belongs in the same category as sexuality.
In the sense that you believe left and right handed are ingrained into
you just like your sexuality, as you believe. Left or right handed is a
choice you can make.
TT