The Post-topic AfterBurn

[Nezhul]

Maybe it's the degree of my english that makes it look rude, but I believe I got rude only with indigo.

Hmm...to be honest, I hadn't considered the issue of a language barrier. To be fair, I'll go over some things you've said that came off as rude to me:

BUT I despise ones that go promoting themselves on a freaking parades. Goddamn, just LIVE peacefully and quietly! I just hate it that way. And I know those demonstrations actually only add to hatred and freak people out, so on top of it they are just stupid as hell.

Words such as "despise", "goddamn" and "stupid as hell" make it seem like you're quite angry with these parades.

There are people in every country that feel hatred for gays. Such as there are people feeling hatred for black people (and other southern nations) or fat people, or just foreigners, or people of a certain religion...
For gays - it's quite understandable.

You seem to be saying here that hatred, not just disagreement, but *hatred* for gays is understandable; and this implies that you yourself share that hatred.

Gays will NEVER convince straight men that fucking another guy is not sick, because for me a thought of fucking a guy is as disgusting as fucking a dog or something.

If I said "the thought of fucking a girl is as disgusting as fucking a corpse", what would you think about my statement? I'm guessing, you probably wouldn't have a very high opinion of it.

Equal rightts is the utopia. More over, only stupid people really want them.

Lots of people here are in favor of equal rights. It might be a pipe dream, but you called us stupid. That's a blatant insult.

On the other hand I spend a lot of time in the village house in my youth, and I should say cows are actually quite cute and adorable creatures. More cute than negro at least.

You say here that cows look better than black people. How would you feel if I said that pigs look better than russians? How do you think any black people reading your post feel?

I'd say someone out to shoot them right on the street, so as anti-gay demonstrations should be shot as well.

This is by far the worst comment you've made on the subject. You're advocating *shooting* people!

------

Anyway...it may or may not have been your intention to come off as rude in these quotes, but you certainly did. These types of statements are what I've been complaining about.

Now step by step.

BUT I despise ones that go promoting themselves on a freaking parades. Goddamn, just LIVE peacefully and quietly! I just hate it that way. And I know those demonstrations actually only add to hatred and freak people out, so on top of it they are just stupid as hell.

Words such as "despise", "goddamn" and "stupid as hell" make it seem like you're quite angry with these parades.

Yes I am angry with them, and I believe this is part of my opinion, so I actually don't see why not express it. Why should I act as if I'm not angry, when the whole point is that I AM and disagree strongly?

There are people in every country that feel hatred for gays. Such as there are people feeling hatred for black people (and other southern nations) or fat people, or just foreigners, or people of a certain religion...
For gays - it's quite understandable.

You seem to be saying here that hatred, not just disagreement, but *hatred* for gays is understandable; and this implies that you yourself share that hatred.

Yes, I say hatred. And if you look at it - it really is. Hatred or at least very strong disgust. And YES I say I can understand where's the nature of it. Personally I differ disgust to the actions and to the people doing it. In Asia they eat bugs, and I personally find that quite disgusting, but I bear no hard feelings to Asians who are doing it. But many people sometimes can't differ those feelings, and end up hating gays themselves for what they do. IMO.

Gays will NEVER convince straight men that fucking another guy is not sick, because for me a thought of fucking a guy is as disgusting as fucking a dog or something.

If I said "the thought of fucking a girl is as disgusting as fucking a corpse", what would you think about my statement? I'm guessing, you probably wouldn't have a very high opinion of it.

Actually I wouldn't care much. I love fucking girls, I don't give much damn if someone finds it disgusting. That's just a matter of taste to me. If someone doesn't like something I'm doing that doesn't actually affect my tastes and enjoyment, nor my ego.

Equal rightts is the utopia. More over, only stupid people really want them.

Lots of people here are in favor of equal rights. It might be a pipe dream, but you called us stupid. That's a blatant insult.

Most of people who are in favour of equal rights don't really want them. You are TOLD you want it, you are told it's good. But my point is that very few people actually ever thought about what equal rights ARE, what democracy that you are vouching for IS, what liberal market actually IS. Many people just learned to KNOW all of this is good, without actually ever considering. Moreover, a lot of people know those terms are good without actually understanding what they mean. If you learn what it all actually is you'll find out that it's not what you really want.
Now I actually agree that my statement was harsh and maybe rude, and for THAT one I can apologise. I guess I got heated up and moreover didn't make my point clear enough.

On the other hand I spend a lot of time in the village house in my youth, and I should say cows are actually quite cute and adorable creatures. More cute than negro at least.

You say here that cows look better than black people. How would you feel if I said that pigs look better than Russians? How do you think any black people reading your post feel?

that's a matter of tastes. If you really think something looks objectively better than Russians, it's your point. Although its more difficult with Russians, because we dont actually have much differences from Europeans. The whole debate about cows was a damn metaphor, and I may really apologise to black people for that my personal tastes rate them physically less cute than some animals. I'm not a racist by that. I find some white people even LESS cute, it's just that I'm yet to find a black person whos looks I could call good (FOR ME PERSONALLY). Again - I'm not saying you are ugly or something (I know many find you attractive) - I'm saying MY tastes are that way.

I'd say someone out to shoot them right on the street, so as anti-gay demonstrations should be shot as well.

This is by far the worst comment you've made on the subject. You're advocating *shooting* people!

Yes. I'd also advocate shooting drug dealers and users, alcoholics, I advocate shooting terrorists and killers, I advocate that you shouldn't be sued for killing a person whos assaulting you, and so on. I advocate that invalids shouldn't recieve pension for their condition (let them and their families take care of them), and on and on..... I actually have quite harsh views on those parts and as much as you can disagree with them, I have them. I'm for death penalty. I'm for making criminals work their ass on hard works, instead of just letting them sit idle and feed them for tax money. I'm an awful person by many standarts for my views. And I know that it's useless to start and argument on THAT, because it'll be just a holywar where no one can convince anyone.

[Evals]

Nezhul, have you considered logically the benefits of being more friendly in general towards all these "touchy" people with whom you disagree? With this group of people, as soon as you state anything mildly offensive, the rest of your argument to them becomes worthless as you have lost all credibility in their eyes when their feelings were hurt. What you might want to do instead is state your opinion in a way that is watered down, that dances around your true feelings, and attempts to deliver a message to the listeners in a way they can emotionally handle.

Of course, your other option is to just keep being yourself, and stop caring what all these hypersensitive people feel. Personally, I think you should skip all the circumlocution and euphemisms that people are encouraging you to use. If what you are saying offends them, they should stop reading and ignore you. They always have that option. Without being all sunshine and roses about things, you'll definitely lose a part of your audience, but... that's the cost.

I think replacing the phrase "you offended me" with "you hurt my feelings" portrays the the phrase more realistically.

[Nezhul]

I don't really need any auditory to start with. If noone wishes to speak to me here - that's ok. But If someone wants to dispute - that's fine too. As you can see I'm not trying to be popular at all. If there's a question I give my answer as I see it. If there's something I disagree with - I'll post my arguments too even if someone can't stand my view.

[les]

True homosexuality whatever sex
         Can not be hereditary or genetic.
                Can it ?

[xelias]

Nehzul, not to delve into all of your rhetoric, although I'm tempted :P with regard specifically to equal rights I think you will have to provide a more persuasive argument than the sweeping, evidence lacking, generalisations of "most people don't really want them" "and many don't even understand them, and if they did they wouldn't want them"

[les]

Nehzul, not to delve into all of your rhetoric, although I'm tempted :P with regard specifically to equal rights I think you will have to provide a more persuasive argument than the sweeping, evidence lacking, generalisations of "most people don't really want them" "and many don't even understand them, and if they did they wouldn't want them"

Of course Nezhul could name names, and/or present a bibliography?

[Nezhul]

I would but perhaps tomorrow. Too tired now to actually write a large post. This of course would be my personal view, because there's not so much books called "Equal Rights - benefits and flaws" =)

On the other post - I don't think homosexuality can be genetic. Still as the nature and reason of this anomaly is not yet discovered (to my knowledge), any assumptions could be true.

[Human]

On the other post - I don't think homosexuality can be genetic. Still as the nature and reason of this anomaly is not yet discovered (to my knowledge), any assumptions could be true.

Well, maybe not genetic, but maybe its something you are born with. or maybe your genetics make you susceptible to be born gay due to a particular hormone cocktail during pregnancy.

Speaking for myself, from an early age, I was never attracted to guys. I could appreciate the aesthetics of guys like cars, but I was never attracted to them. Women modelling underwear on the other hand.....Nobody told me about heterosexuality, no internet. And sex was not on tv. I didnt know why women in underwear gave me erections, but they did. I didnt even know erections were normal. I thought I had some disease which was causing my penis to get erect.

[Alliteration]

Human has it pretty much correct - nothing is certain at this point, but recent research in biology and psychology points to some combination/influence of genetics and in-vitro hormone levels, at least for most people. In any case, it's a bit silly to think that people are waking up one morning and saying "I'm going to be gay now".

[xelias]

I've always been skeptical on the idea that homosexuality can be genetic, both because one, the very notion seems to be patently disadvantageous from an evolutionary point of view, and two my own experience with sexuality is that it is something transcient and maleable, not underwritten or already set in motion before our formative years.

Although I suspect that certain genetic "things" (I dont know biology ^^) could be linked towards a greater or lesser propensity, for certain forms of sexuality.

[Alliteration]

I've always been skeptical on the idea that homosexuality can be genetic, both because one, the very notion seems to be patently disadvantageous from an evolutionary point of view, and two my own experience with sexuality is that it is something transcient and maleable, not underwritten or already set in motion before our formative years.

Although I suspect that certain genetic "things" (I dont know biology ^^) could be linked towards a greater or lesser propensity, for certain forms of sexuality.

It does seem disadvantageous at first glance, but if you delve a littler deeper, things like kin selection can indeed grant a reproductive advantage. Heck, look at bees - only the queen reproduces, and the rest work their whole lives to make sure her offspring "make it".

And yes, sexuality is often malleable, but I think this has to do, at least sometimes, with factors other than sexuality genes. There are other genes in play here sometimes referred to as "thrill-seeking" and "novel experience" genes, which are also responsible for tendencies to parachute, bungee jump, experiment with drugs, etc. Experimenting with sexuality is similar - the individual is seeking out novel sensations/experiences.

Furthermore, the genetic component and the in vitro component work hand in hand; both influence sexuality in different ways.

[Evals]

Homosexuality in ancient Greece has always been something that intrigued me, and might lead one to question whether homosexuality is a result of one's genetics versus the social environment one might be raised and then immersed in. The introduction of that Wikipedia article gives a lot to think upon.

[Nezhul]

but recent research in biology and psychology points to some combination/influence of genetics and in-vitro hormone levels

As I know there are a few theories, but actually all of them are more or less speculation, because no one actually made a research on any of aspects. Noone actually gathered 10 thousend pregnant women and said "And now we'll start long term experiment on weather your children will be homosexual. For the clarity of experiment you'll be living in similar houses and dressing in similar clothes, and you'll be given a daily ammount of phrases you are allowed to say, and be trained to make certain equal expressions. Oh, I believe in 12 or 14 years we'll be quite done..." Homosexuality is discovered in an older age when any speculation on hormone in the vitro are kind of silly.

In any case, it's a bit silly to think that people are waking up one morning and saying "I'm going to be gay now".

No, not like that of course (unless there were some trauma connected to gender relationship recently but that's the other matter). I personally more ready to believe the thing I mentioned before and the thing Evals says again now - that it's social enviroment in our early years that provokes homosexuality. The topic of greece is indeed very interesting. They had homosexuality, why a lot of other nations had not. And don't tell me it's because of social ban that gays were hiding themselves in the thousends cultures for thousends years. The fact is that there were never as many gays as we do have now, nad their number slowly increases in all countries. All I actually can think about as a reason is that something in the society causes it.

It does seem disadvantageous at first glance, but if you delve a littler deeper, things like kin selection can indeed grant a reproductive advantage. Heck, look at bees - only the queen reproduces, and the rest work their whole lives to make sure her offspring "make it".

Did I understood you right - that it's a part of natural selection where some people are made not interested in mating and childmaking?

There are other genes in play here sometimes referred to as "thrill-seeking" and "novel experience" genes, which are also responsible for tendencies to parachute, bungee jump, experiment with drugs, etc.

To start with, all our body, including our brain (and with it - the way of thinking) is made by genes. But that doesn't mean genes are all that affects us. Our behaviouristic trends are formed by the society we live in, and the enviroment around us. Not only by parents who teach us, but practically everything we ever see.
Thrill-seeking is linked to the hormone level, primary endorphins. People who are short of it stimulate its creation with adrenaline and other artificial methods. So basically yes, it's genetic, but the genes are only affect the potential and activity of some glands. That's to clarify the issue.

Experimenting with sexuality is similar - the individual is seeking out novel sensations/experiences.

As human told, and As I agree fully, I personally had attraction only to girld from as long as I remember myself. I remember in kindergarden we seeked to look at their underwear not even KNOWING why. It was just thrilling. I actually don't believe that ANY seeking of new sensations and experiences may lead a Hetero to homo. it's just formed long before we start seeking something more than just to fuck. As a teenagers we hardly ever think of seeking new thrills in sex - we are seeking sex, even if it is in the missionary pose without lights on. It's later, when we'd had it, we start seeking something new. I'm not talkingt about fantasies here - my BDSM attraction began long before my first sex, almost as soon as I actually started thinking about sex in general. I always fantasixed of imprisoned and forced women in that respect.

[Alliteration]

As I know there are a few theories, but actually all of them are more or less speculation, because no one actually made a research on any of aspects.

Would you like some research? I can give you some.

Homosexuality is discovered in an older age when any speculation on hormone in the vitro are kind of silly.

When it was discovered has nothing to do with what causes it. That's not how science works.

They had homosexuality, why a lot of other nations had not. And don't tell me it's because of social ban that gays were hiding themselves in the thousends cultures for thousends years.

Homosexuality in Greece, I would say, was a bit different. It was much more a social phenomenon than anything else; and so-called "homosexuals" in ancient Greece often took wives. Gay sex, for them, was about kinship - not romance or sexuality.

Did I understood you right - that it's a part of natural selection where some people are made not interested in mating and childmaking?

That is correct. We see it all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

Our behaviouristic trends are formed by the society we live in, and the enviroment around us. Not only by parents who teach us, but practically everything we ever see.

That is correct. However, they're also influenced by genes.

[Nezhul]

When it was discovered has nothing to do with what causes it. That's not how science works.

Yes of course. I didn't post it tu argue the theory - maybe they are actually right. But where do they get that theory from? Pure speculation. When a child several years since born (or even 15-20 years) is discovered as a gay - no one can actually check what there was or was not in virtue of his mother when she was pregnant. This is unchecked hypothesis, not necessary wrong, but pure speculative.

Homosexuality in Greece, I would say, was a bit different. It was much more a social phenomenon than anything else; and so-called "homosexuals" in ancient Greece often took wives. Gay sex, for them, was about kinship - not romance or sexuality.

I should confess I don't know much about it and I only heard. THEN if what you are talking about is true, it is not homosexuality. In my opinion homosexuality is a sexual attraction to your own gender. If sexual act is committed as a matter of kin relationship or some ritual, as a handshake, that's not homosexuality.

Did I understood you right - that it's a part of natural selection where some people are made not interested in mating and childmaking?

That is correct.

Well it may be right but something stops me from taking this point of view. The matter of natural selection and how nature handles it is too complex to be sure of something. Yes, in a way it became natural selection. But was it a source or a result? Also I believe a lot of gays are more physically, mentally, socially and emotionally "worthy" to the gene pool as a lot of straight men. And that's kind of a contradiction to me.

Our behaviouristic trends are formed by the society we live in, and the enviroment around us. Not only by parents who teach us, but practically everything we ever see.

That is correct. However, they're also influenced by genes.

It is influenced through our hormone level and mental patterns. For example based on how much adrenaline a man has he'll be more calm or rebellous to some things. For example an active person is more up to take some active task from his parents (like help with building the house) than a calm person. Thats why the same enviroment will affect two people differently because they have difference on a gene level.
Anyway that's a great topic to discuss but I don't believe it has anything much to do with homosexuality.