WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice.

Woody Allen

I hope that SOB committed suicide immediately after uttering those words.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority.

perc,

George Bush and his party, his supporters (FRC, Christian Colition, Focus on the Family, et al) were not elected by the majority. Bush lost the popular vote. He and his policies were opposed by a majority of the people. The minority that Bush represents is in power only because they have managed to get control of the electoral college. And this is what progressives have to do in order to further their own values.

More on values later. Must work now.

0 Replies

Well, now I know. Some homosexuals are pedophiles. Some straights are pedophiles. How do we keep our children safe?

If we know some one is a homosexual we do not allow them to teach small children or to be involved with activities like scouting. If, indeed, we do not know which straights are pedophiles, we do at least know that homosexuals, percentage wise, are more likely to be pedophiles than straights.

I find it interesting that the brilliant minds like Tartarin and Blattham are unable to rebut my arguments at 2:46 above as to why homosexuality is dangerous to our society and to all those parents who would sheild their children from the homosexual life style.

Some people can only blow smoke--gautham- I find it difficult to control my laughter.

Could it be that Gautam did not understand my message?

Possibly. I find that people who don't understand things try to disguise their lack of understanding by laughter/

Very well,. I"ll boil things down for Gautam, the all knowing Blattham and Tartarin( if more detail is needed for understanding of the argument, they are invited to go to my post of 2:46.

The argument in brief:

Since most normal people wish to have their genes preserved in future generations and since most homosexuals do not pass on their genes and since homosexuality according to all known studies is at least partly due to environment and since Identical twins do not always share the homosexual lifestyle showing clearly that genes are not the only factor in predisposition towards homosexuality and since parents who wish that their children carry on their line, and since the left wing atheistic nihilists insist that homosexuality be promulagated in the schools and other places as a viable life style and since any parent who loves his child would protect them at all costs against a disease( such as mumps which might render them sterile), they would also make every effort to protect them from the insidious and highly damaging propaganda from the homosexual community that the homosexual life style is viable.

Try that on for size, Gautam. Now, if you and Tartarin and Blattham have any integrity and or guts, my argument, not coming from a Genius like Blattham, can be easily taken apart. I don't think anyone of you can do it.

Therefore it stands.

You are invited to put it in your sandwiches.

Use Ketchup if it doesn't taste good.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Lola skipped classes in Political Science( Maybe she was reading Sigmund Freud when she should have been listening?)

If Lola can bestir herself to put her long ago discredited Freudian nonsense away and look at article 4 of the amendments to the constitution, she would find that electoral count, not the popular vote elects the president.

I am so sorry, Lola, but that is the way it is.

But, if Lola wishes to insist that George W. Bush "stole" the election, I am very much afraid that she is as ifnorant of the truth as most left wingers.

According to the New York Times(I am sure that not ever Lola would call the newspaper labeled "the paper of record" as a right wing publication) the consortium of newspapers which reviewed the ballots for six months after the election found that even if the Supreme Court had not stopped the count in the four Florida southern counties, Bush would have still won Florida.

If Lola needs to read the details, she should go to the November 18th issue of the New York Times.

I will be glad to give her the essence of the article if she asks.

0 Replies

"Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."7

"Who are the abusers? Although many parents fear the unknown "molester," a child is actually much more likely to be abused by someone he or she knows. An abuser can be anyone caring for a child: a parent or other relative, a baby-sitter, a teacher, a neighbor or a friend."2
"Contrary to popular belief, perpetrators of sexual abuse are well known to the child in 85% of reported cases. This statistic dispels the myth that only strangers molest children."10

0 Replies

gatos, I think it fair to say that Lola was refering to the fact that Bush (while constitutionally elected) did not receive an actual majority of votes of the populace which indicates that he does not have a "mandate" of the electorate. To add, as you did, that she should "bestir herself to put her long ago discredited Freudian nonsense" only says that you are not all that aware of current pyschological theory and acceptance. I am also sure that if Lola needs your assistance in understanding anything, she will not hesitate to ask.

0 Replies

Dyslexia: Is it that you can't read or I can't write.

First of all, I made it clear that the voting numbers alone do not, I repeat, do not make for a victory in a presidential election. Bush won the electoral votes. And if you read my post carefully you would find that there is no evidence that Bush would have lost Florida( which gave Bush the necessary electoral votes).

You see, dyslexia, if you go to the election of Scumbag Clinton in 1992 you will find that the Scumbag received ONLY 43% of the popular vote- that's right- only 43% HOWEVER, HE TOOK 370 Electoral votes.

You do know that- Don't you?

And as for Lola, I do not think that she believes she is ignorant. Therefore she will not ask.

Such people are beyond the pale.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Perc,

You wrote:

Quote:

how the hell do you explode the other person's MISPERCEPTIONS so that we can start from zero? You see my positions as misperceptions and I see yours in the same light.

Your concept of "misperception" is one I think we should talk about. You say I see your positions as misperceptions, but I don't. I think you do see mine that way, but I have a different way of looking at differences of opinion. I see your position as a different opinion from my own. I don't agree with you on most points, but I don't see you as misperceiving. It's like saying someone is "over reacting" or is "hysterical." For me to characterize your position as a misperception would be for me to be denying the validity of your experience. And this is a mistake we all make from time to time, but it is a mistake to assume that I can know what certain political principals or values mean to you. I can tell you what they mean to me. This is why I said the following:

Quote:

But I do think we could learn more from each other if we listened and tried to understand. Asked questions and tried to make some sense of the other's perceptions.

I don't see these things as right or wrong. Right and wrong can only be understood in a context. And your perception is the context in which I must try to understand your values. I think you can only understand my point of view if you try to understand the "why" behind my concepts of what works best. It's not a matter of what is right, but rather a decision about functionality.

I agree with Blatham on this. Liberty is an over riding value for me.....within limits, of course. But I define the limits of liberty more broadly than you do. I don't see any harm in questioning traditional values, whether religious or otherwise. If we don't question tradition, how can we learn?

For instance, what possible harm can there be.......really, to the "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that is) if a same sex couple wants to live together and marry, enjoying the same benefits as heterosexual couples enjoy (the right to visit in the hospital, insurance, taxes, etc.)? How is this a threat to heterosexual marriage? This is the sort of question I think we should be addressing. Not whether my perception is more accurate than yours.

Is it, do you suppose, a fear that we'll all so envy same sex couples' way of life that we'll all want to be doing it? I don't see this as a real threat. A person's sexual orientation is based on far more than example. Is it something like the Domino theory? This is hardly a real danger. Is it the fear that children raised by same sex couples will themselves adopt this "lifestyle?" Research does not confirm this fear.

Liberty is the value I hold dear. It was important to the founding fathers, but whether it was or not, I don't care. I want our government to allow for equal liberty for all to define their lives as they choose, free from the judgement and coercion of others.

I expect, perc, that you want the same for yourself. You take comfort in the notion of majority rule, as if this will somehow protect you from the reality that others do not necessarily agree with your perceptions. None of us has this protection. There is a limit to the amount of control we have over what other people think or do. This is a cold hard, apparent fact, of which I know no other alternative.

0 Replies

Lola gives cheer to the left wing. She tells us that only a MINORITY backs Bush. Therefore, he will not be re-elected in Nov.4th. How do you like your Crow, Lola? rare or well done. If you are still on this venue after Nov. 2nd, I will ask you.

You see, you are quite mistaken when you say that the majority of the US voters do not support Bush.

You will find out in November. That will be the real beginning of the sinking of the left wing ship you are on, Lola, since Bush will carry a large number of additional senators and representatives to victory with him.

But, some people either don't know how to read or won't-

NY Times- Nov. 18th 2002 for evidence that Bush won.

0 Replies

Look, Dyslexia- I don't know who the pederast who is not a homosexual is. They may very well be pederasts and not homsexuals, however, if I have anything to do with it, no overt homosexual will be the teacher of my children or grandchildren or the leader of the boy scout troop.

The likelihood of pederasty in such a person is just too great.

Get your head on straight!!!

0 Replies

This thread has been, for several weeks now, a respite from the silly fighting that has dominated other political threads. Even though we've disagreed with each other, we have been involved in thoughtful, reasonable discourse. I am dismayed to see that a certain member has joined us. I hate it because he seems to bring out the worst in the rest of us.

I'm making a request that those who are engaging him in debate stop doing so. It simply takes up the space on the board with destructive banter and contributes not at all to the deepness of the discussion we've all been enjoying before his arrival. I do not read anything he writes and I will also not read any response to anything he writes. If he is able to somehow cut out the provocation, someone let me know by PM. Because I'll never see it otherwise. I will proceed to speak to the others here who can continue as we have been. And I'm asking each of you to do the same. It's a shame to see this thread be destroyed in this way.

0 Replies

george,

Where are you when we need you?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority.

perc,

George Bush and his party, his supporters (FRC, Christian Colition, Focus on the Family, et al) were not elected by the majority. Bush lost the popular vote. He and his policies were opposed by a majority of the people. The minority that Bush represents is in power only because they have managed to get control of the electoral college. And this is what progressives have to do in order to further their own values.

More on values later. Must work now.

Gato and Dys
Could we concentrate on the gist of Lola's post and drop the stuff on Pedophiles----please.

Lola
I don't know for sure but Gato's statistical data sounds correct however I'm certain it will always be a source of contention for your side. It will always represent a POTENTIAL cause for a constitutional crisis but I would very surprised if it is ever changed. I can certainly sypathize with your anger over the result----I would be equally incensed if the result had been the reverse----you see I became very unhappy with Gore's unsubstantive replies to the prospect of projecting American interests globally. The man should have run under the green party----he was only interested in the environment. I'm interested in the environment also but not at the expense of all else. I am not an ideolog right wing nut----I actually considered voting for Gore early in the campaigning. I actually thought Bush was too much like his Daddy----much too close to big business and had 9/II not happened I would probably be very unhappy with Bush-----however 9/II did happen and I am very happy with the decisiveness of Bush and his team. National security and rapid response to a very complex situation were essential and Bush came through.

So I admit that you have a right to be angry but you are incorrect when you say a majority of the electorate do not support his policies----the polls no not support that conclusion but the real test will come next Nov.

I see you've written some more so I'll "drop" this in the mail.

0 Replies

Well Lola babe, I am here.

For all of us I suggest we let go of the notion of scoring debating points or of somehow 'defeating' an opposing argument or the person who offers it. There are no judges here and there is no agreed method for keeping score or identifying a winner, even if one were to try it. Winning is neither theoretically nor practically possible.

Moreover, except under the most unusual circumstances, none of us are likely to see the 'opponent' here submit to the presumed superiority of the facts and arguments offered by any of us. That occurs only when sufficient empathy, trust, and real communication have been established, and even then generally only on very narrow points.

God knows I have tried to seduce Lola with my many charms, and I have certainly offered her wonderful arguments against some of her positions. The most I have got is the tentative acknowledgement that perhaps some of what she says doesn't apply to me, at least some of the time - maybe. I haven't given her much more than that either. However I have, in the exchanges with her, sharpened my own understanding and perceptions of the issues under discussion, and I suspect she has as well. The result is the area on which we disagree is better defined and perhaps smaller. (She is still wrong !). The process was stimulating and fun - and I picked up a few new ideas and insights. That's all there is here guys! Don't screw it all up by trying for more or for what can't be obtained by any means.

0 Replies

Hey George

Thanks for allowing me to submit a few comments----I've attempted to represent the conservative side honorably but I can't match your eloquence----come on back and pick up where you left off. Where were you?----out money grubbing Laughing

(your words earlier)

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

Look, Dyslexia- I don't know who the pederast who is not a homosexual is. They may very well be pederasts and not homsexuals, however, if I have anything to do with it, no overt homosexual will be the teacher of my children or grandchildren or the leader of the boy scout troop.

The likelihood of pederasty in such a person is just too great.

Get your head on straight!!!

This is becoming amusing, were it not so sad.

In the face of solid challenges and/or absolute refutation to every argument he has used to attempt to shore up his untenable position on this issue, Italgato merely re-states his prejudice, while seemingly in denial about much more likelythreats to his progeny.

Oh well.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Perc,

You wrote:

Quote:
how the hell do you explode the other person's MISPERCEPTIONS so that we can start from zero? You see my positions as misperceptions and I see yours in the same light.

Your concept of "misperception" is one I think we should talk about. You say I see your positions as misperceptions, but I don't. I think you do see mine that way, but I have a different way of looking at differences of opinion. I see your position as a different opinion from my own. I don't agree with you on most points, but I don't see you as misperceiving. It's like saying someone is "over reacting" or is "hysterical." For me to characterize your position as a misperception would be for me to be denying the validity of your experience. And this is a mistake we all make from time to time, but it is a mistake to assume that I can know what certain political principals or values mean to you. I can tell you what they mean to me. This is why I said the following:

Quote:
But I do think we could learn more from each other if we listened and tried to understand. Asked questions and tried to make some sense of the other's perceptions.

I don't see these things as right or wrong. Right and wrong can only be understood in a context. And your perception is the context in which I must try to understand your values. I think you can only understand my point of view if you try to understand the "why" behind my concepts of what works best. It's not a matter of what is right, but rather a decision about functionality.

Wow Lola
I had to really concentrate on the above and I'm still not certain about how to respond but here goes----Let's start with the word "misperceptions". While it is a valid word ( I had to look it up) I do think I used it incorrectly.
I think you will agree that we form all forms of knowledge based on our perceptions transmitted to the brain by our sensory organs. This gained "knowledge" is the result of a vast array of factors----among which are--culture--religion---family---work ---- school---social activities. The resulting experiences form concepts of reality for just me. Your experiences are totally different leading to a different concept of reality.
From our experiences we form concepts for everything under the sun including ideas about political solutions that we would like to see implemented. As a psychoanalist you will form proposed solutions based more on social aspects observed in your work. Being an x-military type with 20 years experience I will form proposed solutions based on past military conflicts and the outcomes. I think you can see how divergent our solutions will probably be. I think a key element here would be to start by listing those factors that we can agree upon. For example
1. Our families have a right to be free from fear.
2. In order to achieve this freedom we must have a strong protective force.
3. In order to provide a strong protective force we must have strong economy.
4. In order to have a strong economy we must the means to produce products that we can sell world wide at a profit............................

These are very simplistic factors and you may or may not agree with any of them but you can see that we must start with factors that we can mutually agree with------right? At this point I won't attempt to address anything else until you respond. I know you're serious about this so I'm willing to pursue it.
If you agree with my premise please list a few factors that you think we could agree upon ---- if you don't like any of my suggestions then tell me how we can start to agree.

0 Replies

george,

So glad to see you lurking. And your attempted seductions are always welcome. And we are in perfect agreement about not winning arguments or scoring points. This is what I'm also saying to perception. We each hold our own opinions based on many factors (I agree perc). As you say, perhaps if we tried to understand the reasons for the other's opinions, we'll be better informed and more open to learning, if the opportunity comes about. This has certainly been the process on this thread so far.

Perc,

you wrote:

Quote:

For example
1. Our families have a right to be free from fear.
2. In order to achieve this freedom we must have a strong protective force.
3. In order to provide a strong protective force we must have strong economy.
4. In order to have a strong economy we must the means to produce products that we can sell world wide at a profit............................

I agree with all your statements above. And I agree that we form opinions and perceptions from sensory stimulation. This stimulation is first transmitted to and then from the a structure in the forebrain called the Amygdala. This structure is the limbic emotional center in the brain. This is where affects (feelings) are generated.

Memories are organized by affects. This is the reason the process of free association is effective in understanding each person's methods of affect management. All of this, without getting too technical, is related to early and current experiences. So the reason I prefer one method of insuring liberty over another is strongly affected by the meanings I assign to these methods, based on my own experience and the methods I've developed for organizing myself and my thinking processes.

Of course, we all have established certain assumptions about reality that are dependent on our own unique experience. These assumptions were/are true only under certain circumstances. However since most of our assumptions were formed at a very early stage of emotional development, and we've come to depend on these assumptions as true, we take these assumptions to be true, or as fact without recognizing the subjective nature of these "facts." This is why we need logical, rational thought processes to help us recognize those assumptions which are, or were, true under certain circumstances, but are not necessarily true under others. And it is to this logical process which I appeal.

I suspect you may agree with one value that Blatham and I have suggested. (maybe) And that is the value of liberty for all.........freedom of expression and lifestyle............respect and appreciation for individual and collective difference, etc. I think where we have disagreement (most of us) is about the method of achieving and protecting this liberty. And the method we each believe to be best is in some part dependent on our own personal assumptions. This is why I appeal to you and all of us to consider, as rationally or logically as is humanly possible, to understand those assumptions on which we base our opinions about how to accomplish the goal of liberty or relative liberty for all.

0 Replies

WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know