| 1st October 2006 01:01 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Well...you took my point and tailored to your specific beliefs...obviously you are willing to tolerate that which you agree with and not so willing to tolerate that which you do not agree...but on the point of religious fanaticsm, which you raised, I would submit to you that as it relates to "survival", most of the religious fanaticism that exists (and I think you are thinking only of the extremes) is far more conguent to "survival" then some of the other pets you may feed...e.g, homosexuality which if I understand you, you not only tolerate, but endorse and defend...personally, I can care less if another man wishes to place another man's penis in his mouth or if woman wants to strap one on, dress up like a Gestapo captain and pound her life partner until the sun rise...however, as homosexuality relates to the propagation of the human species, it serves no useful purpose...to the contrary, it, for obvious and various reasons, is detrimental to the propogation of mankind...most religions, on the other hand (again, discounting the extremes), consist of principles that are beneficial to not only increasing the sheer numbers of human beings, but also consist of principles that are far more consistent with survival of human beings in the collective
I'm perfectly willing to tolerate religious extremists or anyone else so long as they tolerate me. The trouble is, tolerance and fanaticism are generally incompatible. Fanatics are fine so long as they are not in control. Once they gain control, they attempt to force the rest of us to conform to their beliefs and practices. I have no doubt that if the religious right succeeded in their goal of establishing a theocracy in this country (and don't let them fool you that that isn't their ultimate goal), they would put a stop to godless rock'n'roll in no time. I think that should be clear enough.
As for homosexuality, it may serve a survival purpose as well, by culling those who should not reproduce. Let's face it; many homosexuals are not optimal physical specimens. I find it interesting that homosexual behavior is exhibited in many animal species.
I am not anti-religion. I may think that some religions,Buddhism for example, make more sense than others, such as Christianity or Islam. Of course, there are good arguments that Buddhism isn't even a religion, but an empirical system of psychological practices. Religion as a source of ethical behavior has been a positive force in history. Religion as a path to self-realization sits at the top of the Maslovian pyramid. Religion as consolation for fear of death or as a shibboleth to excuse persecution of one's tribal enemies, on the other hand, has been a scourge to humanity. You may be surprised to learn that I consider myself a devoutly religious person in that I endeavor to see every event as an interaction between the general and the particular; or in theistic terms, an interaction between God and my own soul. I also consider the Rolling Stones to be practitioners of a religious tradition with its roots in the obeah or serpent worship (vodoun or voodoo) of West Africa. And as if to verify this last point, an ad for the upcoming Seattle Stones show just aired on the TV. ooo-EEEEE-ooooh!
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler] |
| 1st October 2006 01:22 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
I support the party that doesn't treat young jewish women like cum rags
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
In all fairness, only one was killed... |
| 1st October 2006 01:30 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
Well...you took my point and tailored to your specific beliefs...obviously you are willing to tolerate that which you agree with and not so willing to tolerate that which you do not agree...but on the point of religious fanaticsm, which you raised, I would submit to you that as it relates to "survival", most of the religious fanaticism that exists (and I think you are thinking only of the extremes) is far more conguent to "survival" then some of the other pets you may feed...e.g, homosexuality which if I understand, you not only tolerate, but endorse and defend...personally, I can care less if another man wishes to place another man's penis in his mouth or if a woman wants to strap one on, dress up like a Gestapo captain and pound her life partner until the sun rise...however, as homosexuality relates to the propagation of the human species, (individuals aside) the act itself serves no useful purpose...to the contrary, it, for obvious and various reasons, is detrimental to the propogation of mankind...most religions, on the other hand (again, discounting the extremes), consist of principles that are beneficial to not only increasing the sheer numbers of human beings, but also consist of principles that are far more consistent with survival and advancement of human beings in the collective
Do you ever find it ironic that many of the things that challenge organized religion were brought about and allowed to grow due to the conditions (stability, wealth and security in the collective) created by the positive effects of religion throughout history?
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
Procreation is great, but when it comes to decorating a house or designing clothes...
There's no point there... Before religion was mankinds greatest use of imigination to control others, homosexuals were not only accepted, they were looked upon as great assets to tribes and groups ect...
Way before we became all civilized and shit, even in early days of the big religions of today, men could have many wives. If you look at the ability of one man, and a few women, you can procreate like a motherfucker, so homosexuals were never a threat to increasing our numbers. In todays world.. It's a moot point. We're populated, no Lions or diseases gonna wipe us all out, not yet... The only threats come from ourselves and any universal powers we can't stop anyway! |
| 1st October 2006 01:34 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
To keep this about Anne... Why isn't she procreating?
I've heard her views on fags, her disdain and her hate... Yet, she hasn't spit out one little one yet...
I find it interesting... Has God in her ultimate wisdom layed barren the grapes of wrath? |
| 1st October 2006 01:38 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
This is to no one in particular, I just thought it looked cool and that I would share it.
 |
| 1st October 2006 01:47 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
pdog wrote:
To keep this about Anne... Why isn't she procreating?
I'm guessing she can't get a guy to do her, or even do a turkey baster on her behalf.
 |
| 1st October 2006 01:53 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
This is to no one in particular, I just thought it looked cool and that I would share it.
Gonna sit down in the kitchen
And fix me something good to eat
And make myself a little high
And make the whole day complete
'Cuz we gonna lay around the shanty, mama
And put a good buzz on |
| 1st October 2006 02:43 AM |
|
|
| pdog |
Anne gets high and listens to The Grateful Dead...
What a waste of drugs! |
| 1st October 2006 08:16 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:
I support the party that doesn't treat young jewish women like cum rags
Instead you support the party that values a seat in Congress more than it values keeping young boys away from the internet sexual advances of old men. Nice 'family values' there, Fiji Joe, real nice. To even equate the two, a blowjob between consenting adults to pedophile predation, shows just how seriously fucked up your moral compass is. Not that it's a surprise, just that you would let your guard down like that. Shame on you and all those in the pervert party who enabled this.
|
| 1st October 2006 09:51 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Instead you support the party that values a seat in Congress more than it values keeping young boys away from the internet sexual advances of old men. Nice 'family values' there, Fiji Joe, real nice. To even equate the two, a blowjob between consenting adults to pedophile predation, shows just how seriously fucked up your moral compass is. Not that it's a surprise, just that you would let your guard down like that. Shame on you and all those in the pervert party who enabled this.
Dude...you're not serious on this rant you're on are you?...there are plenty of pervert examples to go around...it's a non-partisan dealio yo...you should just be quiet before you are made to look really dumb |
| 1st October 2006 10:08 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
it's nice to see you bactrack...
|
| 1st October 2006 10:12 AM |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
it's nice to see you bactrack...
Never...
|
| 1st October 2006 07:11 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
I suppose I should appreciate getting the last word, too, but I prefer a lively discussion. |
| 1st October 2006 07:21 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
As do I counsellor. I bet the only response, however, will be the usual statist spittle from the usual suspects, those defenders of the pervert party.....
snicker....
|
| 1st October 2006 08:27 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
I can't go along with the "pervert party" characterization. I think sexual malfeasance by those in power is as old as humanity or older. I do draw a distinction between activities involving adults, straight or gay, and those involving minors.
I was enjoying a dialogue with Fiji Joe last night. While I wasn't entirely sure whether he simply didn't grasp the nuances of my position or whether he was baiting me, I felt that I stayed on topic and did not devolve into ad hominem argument. I honestly was interested in his response to my final post in that discussion and disappointed not to have seen it. I hope that the problem isn't merely that he doesn't know what "shibboleth" means. I am one of those twits who still think that talking/writing about ideas, particularly with those who hold differing positions, can be both interesting and edifying.
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler] |
| 1st October 2006 09:23 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Jesus Maria, Foley is in deep. What is the age of consent anyway? I thought it was 16 everywhere. Its still just as creepy a grown man chasing after a teenager - shades of Wyman, shades of Nugent - but unlike them two, this wouldn't be illegal, unless I'm missing something. |
| 1st October 2006 09:31 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
of course I'm baiting him, as he does us...
|
| 1st October 2006 09:46 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Jesus Maria, Foley is in deep. What is the age of consent anyway? I thought it was 16 everywhere. Its still just as creepy a grown man chasing after a teenager - shades of Wyman, shades of Nugent - but unlike them two, this wouldn't be illegal, unless I'm missing something.
It ranges from 16 to 18. 16 is most common. As for the relevant jurisdictions in this case, it's 18 in Florida, 17 in Louisiana and 16 in D.C. |
| 1st October 2006 09:46 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Jesus Maria, Foley is in deep. What is the age of consent anyway? I thought it was 16 everywhere. Its still just as creepy a grown man chasing after a teenager - shades of Wyman, shades of Nugent - but unlike them two, this wouldn't be illegal, unless I'm missing something.
It ranges from 16 to 18. 16 is most common. As for the relevant jurisdictions in this case, it's 18 in Florida, 17 in Louisiana and 16 in D.C. |
| 1st October 2006 10:11 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
It ranges from 16 to 18. 16 is most common. As for the relevant jurisdictions in this case, it's 18 in Florida, 17 in Louisiana and 16 in D.C.
So if the Angola yard pigeon of a congressional page is in D.C. when Foley asked him to de-draweralize, Foley beats the rap? Depends where the alleged victim is? |
| 1st October 2006 10:26 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
Not sure. If both parties are in DC, it would appear to be legal. I don't think anything short of an explicit invitation to sexual contact would be illegal in any case. |
