They Had Two Mommies in 1923

[Diogenes]

But that particular battle for dominance took millions of years.

In as much as the slow part of the exponential curve took that long, yes. Roughly 1.5 MY from first tool use. Cue Kurzweil. I can't think of any compelling counter argument to the apparent trend of accelerating progress.

Hubris.

Another facet (seemingly) of this I noticed even as a kid was the relative outsourcing of Man's intelligence (book and street) to externals like books and (to massively larger degrees) electronics, over recorded history.

The more we creep towards post-scarcity, the more Reason trumps classic conventions as single most prime factor.

I think the age of reason peaked some many decades ago. I find all too often that rather intelligent people have no interest in reasoning nowadays. Too many are agenda driven. Look at AGW for example.
(Or any other subject discussed in this forum.)

The planet's too cramped. We need to get off of it and get past scarcity.

I agree. Mars is the only thing remotely available to us as a potentially viable alternative. (currently.)

After that Reason ought to really stretch its legs again.

I am beginning to suspect that prosperity is anathema to reason; That without working a muscle it atrophies. I think humans developed wits to deal with threats, and in the absence of threats we evolve stupider.




Who would have every thought Idiocracy was a documentary?

And... I'd suggest that e.g. the Renaissance etc are all like such extraordinary highs thanks to so much low hanging fruit not yet picked.

Intelligence prosthetics are the next step we must take. That or life extension. The requirements for advancing science are just ridiculously expensive for our current lifespan.

Benign Skynet?

[ladajo]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

Read some history.

[paperburn1]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

Read some history.

I had a very smart man tell me one time that it took three things to cause a society to collapse other than war.
First was the attempt to include all classes and morals of people by giving them all equal rights. A good indicator was acceptance of homosexuality as a norm.
Second was the establishment of a welfare class. The Example given was the Roman bread and circus.
And the third was the Return Of Energy Invested. When it drops below 3 to 1 the society cannot afford public works and loses the ability to feed its population. The example given was when we first started to use petroleum products the ROEI was 100 to one. Currently it is at 10 to one. He also said that a society could survive and prosper with Two of the three but not all three things occurring at the same time.

[williatw]

I had a very smart man tell me one time that it took three things to cause a society to collapse other than war.
First was the attempt to include all classes and morals of people by giving them all equal rights. A good indicator was acceptance of homosexuality as a norm.
Second was the establishment of a welfare class. The Example given was the Roman bread and circus.
And the third was the Return Of Energy Invested. When it drops below 3 to 1 the society cannot afford public works and loses the ability to feed its population. The example given was when we first started to use petroleum products the ROEI was 100 to one. Currently it is at 10 to one. He also said that a society could survive and prosper with Two of the three but not all three things occurring at the same time.

Don't think anyone ever managed one....at least not throughout most of history, I mean slavery/vassal Dom was the rule. Gov's persecuted their subjects at will gave equal rights to few, didn't stop them from collapsing. Perhaps you mean instead attitudes about ones obligation to society, like starting families serving in the military by choice something like that. We tend to think of marriage/kids as something to do if you think it will make you happy, not as a duty to society/family like earlier generations do. Divorce was discouraged because it was perceived as destructive to family, individual happiness (or lack thereof didn't enter into it.) Judging from the collapsing birthrate in Europe and Japan, maybe a partial on one especially if I redefine it as tolerant of idea/practices previously considered deviant.
As for two...don't know about welfare state per see, but gov over time does tend to become more and more bloated with bureaucrats or others enjoying patronage. So maybe on two.
Lastly three...well anytime sustained outlays exceed inlays then yeah collapse is inevitable.

[paperburn1]

I believe the point he was trying to make was two of the three was tolerable but all three resulted in collapsing without the outside influence of war. I think most slavery vassal society ended with uprising or war, but the ones that just sort of went away. More like the Mayans or Cambodians or some of the dynasties in China. But In a larger overview I do not believe any Arrangement can survive the long term because it will be absorbed by a larger more efficient system or corrupted from within by the very society’s they absorb.
And the final thing I was going to get around to but forgot to post was that If we do not come up with an energy source that "brings us to the next level" our society is doomed to collapse. BUT if we could increases our available energy (via Polly well) we could progress to the next level of civilization whatever that may be.

[Teahive]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Diogenes seems to believe that "the laws of nature" will somehow 'correct' tolerance towards homosexuality. I simply doubt the existence of such a mechanism.

(And just to be sure, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is or isn't genetic. In fact I really don't care whether it's a product of one's genes or environment. You are what you are, no matter what got you there.)

There are two serious societal objections to homosexuality.

1. The practice transfers diseases rapidly between participants.

Homosexuality is normally characterized by excessive promiscuity.

A questionable claim. Considering that society for a long time did not accept homosexual couples openly living in a monogamous relation, it's hardly surprising that sexual encounters would be of a far more short-lived nature when driven underground. So you're really not comparing like for like.

Secondly, even if there was a significant correlation, the objectionable behavior remains promiscuity, not homosexuality. It cannot be used as an objection against monogamous homosexual relations.

Prior to the development of modern medicine, this would have had the result of killing all participants. People would have seen such people wasting away from disease, and rightly assumed that the behavior was inherently dangerous.

We do not live "prior to the development of modern medicine", though. Risks should be evaluated according to present circumstances, not some random point in the past.

2. The practice tends to produce progressively darker and more aggressive fetishization.


Beyond excessive promiscuity, the behavior produces an ever expanding and continuous resort to fetishes. As one sort of behavior gives way to boredom, participants feel the need to continuously push the boundaries ever further. They may move from Oral, to @nal, then on to watersports and scat, BSDM, TransGender, Pederasty, Necrophilia, rape, torture and snuff.

In other words, they get progressively more aggressive and twisted. If they have once made the decision to ignore the natural boundaries, at what boundaries will they eventually stop?

A circular argument. If you don't consider it to go past natural boundaries, the idea of having crossed into a dark area where anything goes no longer applies.

The obvious "natural" boundaries are consent and harm. Beyond that, I really don't care what goes on in anyone's bedroom.

Both of these characteristics make the practice a dangerous behavior for any society to tolerate. It is only as a result of how large our population has become and how prosperous is our nation that our society has become so indulgent of the practice, but the inherent nature of it will not long be satisfied upon reaching any particular goal. (such as same sex marriage) It will then move the goal posts and once more demand some new concession from society for what it wants next, and it will always be perpetually unsatisfied.

What is "it"? A practice has no desires or demands, people do.

Drugs, Abortion, Homosexuality, are all practices that have the ability to de-populate and collapse a nation if allowed to get out of control. I suspect a lot of people never consider that many of our attitudes regarding certain sorts of behavior were developed during periods of time when death was easy and life was hard, and it was always a constant struggle to stay ahead of the next bringer of death.

Now that we have pushed death back so much, many people have embraced beliefs that unknowingly to them, will eventually invite it back in. Evolution will dictate who wins.

I hate to point it out, but the two very well educated women at the top of this thread lost the race in the overall scheme of things. (No offspring.) So too is it happening to those who have embraced the modern Abortion mindset. Guess who the winners will be?

Those who live a fulfilled life according to whatever purpose they give to it.

What about the practice of simply not having children? You aren't proposing legislating against that, are you?

[kcdodd]

I would like to point out the observed correlation between the complete collapse of major cultures once they had openly and widely adopted homosexuality.

On first take, seems like a society's death sentence...just sayin.

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

Read some history.

You didn't answer the question. Or are you just so busy that you can't be bothered to support anything you say.

[kcdodd]

Ok, well I'll have to have extra gay sex tonight just for that little bit of stupidity. And I agree, natural selection is always at work. And you have no say in the matter. That's why it's natural selection, not christian selection.

You know you zinged someone when they start howling.

The fact that we are still here spits in the face of your argument. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow even if 100% of the population was homosexual.

?????

You seem to suffer the delusion, as your peers do, that gay people can't reproduce.

Are you not reading what I write? Of course they can! I never said nor indicated otherwise. They just don't usually find it compelling. It's the difference between capabilities and intent.

And contrary to the best efforts of people like you to actively prevent us from doing so, we are fully capable of raising children.

Again, the distinction between capability and intent.

And if, as you like to say, we only make up 2% of the population, then the average percentage of infertile people is on par or higher. How could we possibly cause a larger impact! You are completely illogical. Until we're not here anymore you'll just have to eat it.

You do not understand my argument. It is your misunderstanding of it that makes it seem illogical. Yes, they can have a far greater impact on a society than can infertile couples.

Have you felt the affect of my gay sex yet? Obviously it hasn't had time to kill you yet since you're still posting. Have you had at least a head-ache? Anything? If only you had shared your wisdom of the power of the gay sex.

[Diogenes]

Given that evolution has not eliminated homosexuality thus far, I see little reason to believe that it violates the laws of nature in any way.

You really typed that?

Explain to me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally?

Diogenes seems to believe that "the laws of nature" will somehow 'correct' tolerance towards homosexuality. I simply doubt the existence of such a mechanism.

I do too, because I neither said nor implied any such thing. Nature will "correct" an excessive accumulation of homosexuality. In the west, accumulations of excess grass, brush and trees results in periodic fires which sweep the plains clean. Archeologists have dug down into the soil and discovered this process has been repeating itself for many thousands of years.

I have long postulated that prior to antibiotics, diseases would periodically sweep through their ranks and kill them. (and sometimes people who associated with them.) This last epidemic was contained by the development of medical science capable of discovering the latest killer, and the development of media through which word could be spread. Even so, it ended up killing millions before it started slowing down.

Had steps not been taken, it would likely have gotten the vast bulk of the promiscuous types. (The majority. Monogamists are relatively rare within the group.)

(And just to be sure, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is or isn't genetic. In fact I really don't care whether it's a product of one's genes or environment. You are what you are, no matter what got you there.)

There are two serious societal objections to homosexuality.

1. The practice transfers diseases rapidly between participants.

Homosexuality is normally characterized by excessive promiscuity.

A questionable claim.

If you believe that, then I don't think you have adequate knowledge to discuss this subject. Promiscuity is a given in Homosexual culture. Have you ever heard of a "breeding party"?

Again, let me see if I can explain it to you. Males, as a general rule are very promiscuous. Many of them would jump on an opportunity to have sex with a beautiful young girl. If they could find themselves in a situation where they could have sex with an entire string of beautiful young girls, they would wear themselves out doing it.

As it so happens, there is such opportunities, and it works out exactly as I have outlined. One of my good friends was stationed in the Philippines, and he says that there are girls who work in the bars there that you can buy for an hour or a night, or whatever. He would pick up a different one (often times more than one) every day for about two weeks. He says after that, he just couldn't go anymore. (Two weeks at a time, then a break. Rinse and repeat.)

Now girls are less inclined to make themselves available as a train of sex partners, because their interests lie more with finding the "right" guy and staying with him. But men prefer quantity when they can get it.

So now consider what happens when you are attracted to the sort of person that feels the same way you do about quantity? If you can't get enough of what you are attracted to, and what is attracted to you can't get enough either, it's a guaranteed and continuous massive DNA swap fest. (including pathogenic DNA.)

That is a quick explanation for what happens, but please don't take my word for it. Research it yourself. They have male sex drive towards females, re-routed towards males. Figure it out.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message. It's just speculation from lack of knowledge. Read up on this subject. I have been learning about it for many decades.


Here's a start.

[Diogenes]

Have you felt the affect of my gay sex yet? Obviously it hasn't had time to kill you yet since you're still posting. Have you had at least a head-ache? Anything? If only you had shared your wisdom of the power of the gay sex.

You're sounding a little kooky here. I'm not sure why you should think there would be some sort of effect.

One grasshopper eating a blade of grass isn't much of a problem. It's when they get together and destroy everything in sight that they become a plague.

[ladajo]

What correlation? I'm not aware of it.

Read some history.

You didn't answer the question. Or are you just so busy that you can't be bothered to support anything you say.

To be fair, I have actually been really busy at work of late.
But, that said, I find it interesting that your education has provided no insight in this regard.
Personally Carter, I do not give a rats ass if you like ass sex or not. It is none of my concern. I do point out however that no matter how many times you have sex with a man, it is not going to generate offspring. So it should follow that any children you gain by other means, are clearly goign to be more influenced by nuture on your part than nature as they move forward in life. For something to be considered normal, it would beg to be practiced by the majority. Being gay is not the majority. You can at this point not say it is something "everybody does and accepts." The majority does not.

[Diogenes]

And this is how they got removed from the list of mental disorders.


MassResistance web site shut down after homosexual activist threatens web hosting company

The MassResistance website was shut down last week after a homosexual activist and convicted sex offender threatened the web hosting company. Although the site has finally come back up, (after nearly three days of being down) the activist has now sent a threat to the owner of the MassResistance's new hosting company.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 6679/posts

[Teahive]

Nature will "correct" an excessive accumulation of homosexuality.

Well, that's fine then, as acceptance of homosexual monogamous relations by society does not cause "an excessive accumulation of homosexuality".

There are two serious societal objections to homosexuality.

1. The practice transfers diseases rapidly between participants.

Homosexuality is normally characterized by excessive promiscuity.

A questionable claim.

If you believe that, then I don't think you have adequate knowledge to discuss this subject. Promiscuity is a given in Homosexual culture. Have you ever heard of a "breeding party"?

Again, let me see if I can explain it to you. Males, as a general rule are very promiscuous. Many of them would jump on an opportunity to have sex with a beautiful young girl. If they could find themselves in a situation where they could have sex with an entire string of beautiful young girls, they would wear themselves out doing it.

Yes, many men would. Some would not, or at least think twice. Especially those who try to be faithful to their spouse. Such men do indeed exist.

Thus you're looking at biased data, since homosexuals traditionally had very limited possibilities to live in stable monogamous relationships, and are still facing difficulties.

And I'll repeat myself: Even if there was a significant correlation, the objectionable behavior remains promiscuity, not homosexuality. Thus that argument cannot be used as an objection against monogamous homosexual relations. In fact wider acceptance of the latter probably leads to reduced promiscuity.

[Diogenes]

Nature will "correct" an excessive accumulation of homosexuality.

Well, that's fine then, as acceptance of homosexual monogamous relations by society does not cause "an excessive accumulation of homosexuality".

If the behavior stays within that constraint, then It would likely not cause any great trouble. Yes, that is seemingly a valid point.

A questionable claim.

If you believe that, then I don't think you have adequate knowledge to discuss this subject. Promiscuity is a given in Homosexual culture. Have you ever heard of a "breeding party"?

Again, let me see if I can explain it to you. Males, as a general rule are very promiscuous. Many of them would jump on an opportunity to have sex with a beautiful young girl. If they could find themselves in a situation where they could have sex with an entire string of beautiful young girls, they would wear themselves out doing it.

Yes, many men would. Some would not, or at least think twice. Especially those who try to be faithful to their spouse. Such men do indeed exist.

If you are discussing single men, then faithfulness is not an issue.

Thus you're looking at biased data, since homosexuals traditionally had very limited possibilities to live in stable monogamous relationships, and are still facing difficulties.

You are suggesting that they don't form stable relationships because of lack of opportunity rather than my understanding, which is they (mostly) don't form stable relationships for lack of inclination.

Again, when you postulate the gay equivalent of an unattached male, why wouldn't they want to plow the herd? Straight men most certainly would if given the chance. Gays are given the chance, so of course most of them do. It is not for lack of opportunity to be in a relationship with just one individual. They could do that and no one need be the wiser. No, as a general rule they much prefer to play the field.

Straight men would do so as well, but the women simply wouldn't stand for it. It is the instinct of the woman to find the best mate possible, and then stay with them at least long enough to get some healthy babies out of them. They are extremely jealous, and firmly believe in the notion that a man should be devoting all his energies to just them and their offspring.

There is no such instinct among males, and male gays do not (Usually) reflect any such instinct. They reflect the normal male instinct of sowing seeds everywhere, but without the counter force of the female controlling their "Oat sowing."

And I'll repeat myself: Even if there was a significant correlation, the objectionable behavior remains promiscuity, not homosexuality. Thus that argument cannot be used as an objection against monogamous homosexual relations. In fact wider acceptance of the latter probably leads to reduced promiscuity.

I agree that if they could separate promiscuity from homosexuality, it would seriously reduce the transfer of diseases, and probably also the tendency to one up each other in fetishes. But extreme promiscuity seems to be the rule, not the exception. Many gays regard it as an essential expression of who they are.

If they think it's their business if they want to have sex with men, they likewise believe it is their business to have it with as many as they want. Any attempts to impose monogamy would be fought just as hard as attempts to prevent them from doing their thing. In a word, Monogamy is "unnatural" for most homosexuals. It is a stifling rule that they just don't want.

This marriage stuff has nothing to do with what most of them actually want. It has to do with forcing society to accept what they really want through an incremental process.

Just as Ryan White (Non-Gay Hemophiliac who acquired the disease from a blood transfusion and who was therefore a person who would engender sympathy for the cause. )was chosen as the symbol for the fight against AIDS, Gay "Marriage" is being used as a symbol to engender sympathy for the social recognition of their behavior.

It's just a tactic.

[Teahive]

If you are discussing single men, then faithfulness is not an issue.

We're not just discussing single men, though.

Again, when you postulate the gay equivalent of an unattached male, why wouldn't they want to plow the herd? Straight men most certainly would if given the chance. Gays are given the chance, so of course most of them do. It is not for lack of opportunity to be in a relationship with just one individual. They could do that and no one need be the wiser. No, as a general rule they much prefer to play the field.

Straight men would do so as well, but the women simply wouldn't stand for it. It is the instinct of the woman to find the best mate possible, and then stay with them at least long enough to get some healthy babies out of them. They are extremely jealous, and firmly believe in the notion that a man should be devoting all his energies to just them and their offspring.

I don't think you're doing your argument a favor with those sweeping generalizations. You can find all levels of promiscuity among men or women, straigt or gay. There may be clear tendencies, but you certainly don't have to go to the Philippines to find plenty of promiscuous women, nor do you have to search particularly long to find faithful men on either shore.

I agree that if they could separate promiscuity from homosexuality, it would seriously reduce the transfer of diseases, and probably also the tendency to one up each other in fetishes. But extreme promiscuity seems to be the rule, not the exception. Many gays regard it as an essential expression of who they are.

Maybe it seems that way because the promiscuous types are also the loudest.

Separating promiscuity from homosexuality is easy: simply treat people as individuals, not as representing their gender, and judge them by their actions. If you think promiscuity is per se harmful, then surely the gender of the person in question is inconsequential.

Similarly, whatever "most of them actually want" is no reason for me to deny anyone equal rights. You know, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.