I think some have already made the choice of being an idiot, but the typical idiot doesn't know he's an idiot. He thinks he's normal. As normal as blueberry pie -- made with strawberries.
Unfortunately, most people in this country are idiots. They voted for GW Bush.
He's a Methodist, or a one-step ex-drunk if you will.
Whether his clergyman put the idea of ID into his head or not is superflous. He still believes God speaks to him and tells him to louse things up.
Those are the definite signs of a twisted and demented mind. And I suspect he's drinking again.
I know that I am. Not that I ever stopped.
Quote:He's been run over by his own tire and apparantly this morning doesn't have a life and "stuff like that."
Don't slam the door on the trailer when leaving.
LOL! Thats actually funny. I dont know what the saying "been run over by his own tire" means tho.
Quote:RaceDriver205 wrote:
I personally respect very few people
I thnk there a lesson to be learned about RaceDriver205 here.
Well yeah, I dont respect people without a good reason. And few people have a good reason. Theres a difference between respecting someones privacy/rights/choices etc and respecting them as a person.
RaceDriver205 wrote:
I said, "Your tire of the nit-picking is both welcome and ignored".
Now stop nit-picking.
Well, if you're going to patronize me from some imagined lofty "intellectual" height, racing driver person, it'd help if you made your comments a wee bit coherent, that's all. Personally, I see no problem with responding "emotionally" to bigotry, from time to time. :wink:
Why is it bigotry to suggest being gay is not an inherent quality?
It seems to many, the innateness of sexuality is axiomatic and unquestionable.
It seems evidence is not important when you have emotional fueled rhetoric, when it comes to this particular 'sacred cow'.
Interesting...
Look, Doctor S, how someone became gay is immaterial to me. If you want to pursue this, for whatever reason & others want to respond, then feel free to continue. To me, gays just are gay. And I don't think this is a particularly "emotionally fuelled" position. Nor is it a "scared cow" with me. As an educator, I have seen a lot of quite serious damage done to (often very young) homosexuals as a result of bigotry within their communities. I also have had gay friends who have suffered discrimination. That is primarily where my interest lies on this subject. Why is this issue (purely intellectual, of course!) of such importance to you?
msolga wrote:Look, Doctor S, how someone became gay is immaterial to me. If you want to pursue this, for whatever reason & others want to respond, then feel free to continue. To me, gays just are gay. And I don't think this is a particularly "emotionally fuelled" position. Nor is it a "scared cow" with me. As an educator, I have seen a lot of quite serious damage done to (often very young) homosexuals as a result of bigotry within their communities. I also have had gay friends who have suffered discrimination. That is primarily where my interest lies on this subject. Why is this issue (purely intellectual, of course!) of such importance to you?
It isn't, it is of purely pedantic interest. Why am I talking about it? Perhaps because this thread was created for just such a discussion!
It seemed to me that you had some special interest in the issue, that's all. I was just wondering what that interest could be.
It's just pedantic or a narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned interest. Or maybe, I guess, he is trying to say that gays are just pedestrians like himself.
Courtesy of Urban75 magazine:
Trolling
There are some individuals out there who don't just enjoy winding up people on newsgroups and bulletin boards - it's their sad lifestyle choice! Using every known disruptive trick in the book, these troublesome types don't go out to the pub, meet members of the opposite sex or enjoy life. They spend their time hunched over their computers trolling.
Here's how they work:
INTRODUCTION
The object of this post is to bring together a definitive document to cover the phenomena of the Usenet Troll. To many a troll is nothing more than an annoying method of defeating the killfile whereas to the heavily killfiled, trolling can be a virtual Godsend.
What I want this document to focus on is how to create entertaining trolls. I have drawn on the expertise of the writer's of some of Usenet's finest and best remembered trolls. Trolls are for fun. The object of recreational trolling is to sit back and laugh at all those gullible idiots that will believe *anything*.
Section 1: What Is A Troll?
The WWW gives this as a definition:
troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.
The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.
If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.
The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining comments given above:
In Usenet usage, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses.
The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.
There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:
People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.
Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie and should be ignored.
msolga wrote:It seemed to me that you had some special interest in the issue, that's all. I was just wondering what that interest could be.
Honestly?
My 'special interest' here is the study of human nature.
I find discussions involving nature/nurture to be fascinating, and this particular example is a sterling one.
It is unfortunate to the discussion that so many are so deeply emotionally involved as to see an attack or an agenda in every statement.
I don't have a problem discussing "Is being gay a choice?" but I don't necessarily see it as a question of any more or less substance that any other sexual bias or sexual impetus, at least if it wasn't for the prurient underlying moral issue some maintain
I think, for example, a just as valid question would be to ask why the human female is always sexually receptive, as opposed to all other female primates who come into estrus. The clitoris is not necessary for sexual reproduction nor are breasts that are always enlarged (insert joke here, I know you want to).
I think what you are going to find, as we go forward, that the whole concept of discrete individualized sexuality will be perceived more and more as a rather quaint anachronism, given the harbinger of the future that sex change operations, and gay rights represents
Hey Chum-
That sounds a good idea to reduce outgoings of hard earned cash: an operation that will make me fancy dockers rather the can-can girls.
Where do they do it?
I think the local YMCAs have a mobile sex change service they set up every other Tuesday: "It's fun to stay at the YMCA".
I hear they have grope (sic) discounts for those of the polyamorous persuasions.
Chumly, you need to get laid.
