Posts made by agis

ah ok uic nevermind

pssst  uicuic is by chance Oatmeal… you?  :cheesy2:

@insonne773:

Capito cosa provocava il tutto e cioè la "protezione di rete" di Avast si è risolto parzialmente il tutto perchè per fare funzionare il tutto devo fermare la protezione di rete e ciò non mi garba molto, cmq nuovi mirabilanti avventure nei prossimi giorni in cui cercherò di rislvere sto problemino, che però ribadisco con windows 7 non c'era

Grazie ancora a tutti e due

Figurati, ciau bellessa  :hug2:

;D

:ok2:

@leatherbear:

:sorry: I did not reply earlier agis been very busy lately.

IMHO most LGBT couples feel married and live life as a married couple. It is only when we come to some legal issue that we encounter problems. The $363,000 dollars is a prime example of these problems. It seems to me that the very root cause of most of these legal issues have as a basis for problems starts with the IRS and tax codes. There is a vast difference between single and married status within these Tax Codes and these differences follow thru to many other Laws,Rules and Regulations when dealing with other Government agencies.

For me and many others, this fight is about equal treatment in these married vs single issues with the Government and its laws currently.

No need to apologize of course  :hug2: you are always doing a lot for this forum imo and my jokes often border on the impertinence  ;D . Btw I quite agree with  you there. Every now and then it even happens one of your political or ideological enemies may prove up to give you a good laugh. On gay marriage in Italy, for instance, one of these straight à la Dongiovanni so said intellectuals  of the so said right, Vittorio Sgarbi,  once  said:

Concerning marriage, to these gays who want it I'd do a really terrible and perfidious thing:
I would bestow it on them.

:laugh:

and with that one might start to wonder how much a good deal of difficulties are truly correlated with this poor ill-treated sex…  ^-^

I was born in the Genoa suburbs in Italy 

mmmm ahora que lo mencionas vi que no hay un forum español  
Sin embargo, también puedes hablar  con el topo agis  ^-^

Mejor aquí de todos modos

https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?board=148.0

@belLugA:

@leatherbear:

:welco: to the GT.ru Forums !!!

Looking forward to your shares  :cheers:

THX leatherbear ,
it starts bad I can not edit a file, I get this message:
File …..............
You are not allowed to edit this torrent

@agis:

Salut Bellu you were a sailor then?  ^-^

salvezza agis, sea ​​on a trawler

aaah t'étais un pêcheur alors…?  ^-^

Ok,ok bears since it may happen that an elephant is scared by a mouse it could even happen that some bears are scared by a mole dunno  ;D

What do yoy think about those 363.000 dollars? 

From wiki (incomplete but not too bad)

The "heterogony of ends" is a famous expression formulated in 1886 by German philosopher Wilhelm Wundt, to denote the phenomenon of men serving different purposes than those they are consciously pursuing.
The original German expression was Heterogonie der Zwecke, variously translated in English as heterogony/heterogeneity/heterogenesis of ends/goals/purposes. It was first formulated by Wundt in 1886, in his book Ethics.
Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico is sometimes credited as having anticipated and influenced Wundt's idea. (  :funny2: ) (sorry guys it's not my fault blame the bears instead)

ihihiihihihihih ^-^
Of course this is not a complaint or a request but only an invite to a due consideration.

Gay News
Sex & Relationships
Coming Out
Health and Fitness
Personal Grooming
Civil Unions & Marriage
Parenthood
Family & Friends
General News
Politics & Debate
…

Are we really sure that a multiplication of the boxes can engender in itself a mutiplication of the contents?

No, because in a different time/space and in a more sunny place in the open air which was named

agora

all these topics were treated/addressed… together.

:whistle:  :hehe:

Salut Bellu you were a sailor then?  ^-^

@Amazonios:

@agis, right, that way of managing a situation like this sounds promising, thanks for your input

Don't mention it dear  ^-^.
The not more than 2 secs duration of your returning glance goes in the same direction of the non aggressive approach Dax has already written about.
This thing has even been  scientifically studied by sociologists, antropologists and stuff but is also one of those few things easy to experiment on our own without particular preliminary needs

No sorry bears I've not time enough for a treaty    Let's simply say if we accepted a series of premises we here generally share we should also accept and coherently agree upon the fact the oppressor seems more unhealthy than her/his victim. But philosophy comes with a different pretention; the pretention of grabbing an ἐπιστήμη that is to say a justified true knowledge which, as such, could even put in jeopardy and go beyond the very sense above the construction of  the premises themselves.

To GW, for instance, an Italian philosopher of the XVIII century, Giambattista Vico, could  answer:

Even if there was a god artificer of the man(kind),
we should never forget the man(kind) cannot avoid to be the god
of its artefacts.  (…and, I would add of mine, not the slave)

After 300 years GV still reminds GW of the fact  that you cannot take away something you hadn't previously put and pretending to keep an homophobia with a guiltyfying goal equates to keep without reporting it that very guiltyfying structure the so said "homosexuality" was born for.

On a more practical and fashionable note, I should also add GW doesn't mention a slight personal interest conflict since, unluckily, our psy friends make a living upon the mental diseases.

Moreover,  digging down down into the fake superficial deepness GW, aware of not of that,  believes to belong to, he doesn't and cannot come outta the contradiction of a science/technology pretending to be the new modern ἐπιστήμη which,  annihilating in a previsional sense the "becoming" gets contradictory with  oooops  :afr: 

@Amazonios:

You are walking on the street, when you turn your head around and see some gorgeous guy. When you are getting closer, he turns his head to look at you as well and that moment stands still in your memory.

This is a very common scenario, but it's heavily risky to make a step toward it. So, if you talk to him, you draw attention; additionally, you don't know with full certainty if he is interested in you.

How do you react in situations like this? That spark that lights up, when you see some great looking stranger in the street?

Well let's see Amaz. Like all the polite moles I generally, like imD, don't start the discussion after a glance. If interested I return the glance for a moment which is better not longer than 2 secs and a mild smile à La Gioconda. I keep then myself available to be buttonholed  ^-^

very well but sorry I'd like to have also an opinion of yours bears! cum on! U r old enough! Yes!!! U can!

;D

@myrea:

@agis:

Hmmm not sure if we already have matter for a general ahem "law" there. Myr? Bears?…. 

For me the need of "laws" in such matter is only to allow fair and equal financial and tax questions, I do not believe in marriage as a social practice, people are only married in the heart.

:cheesy2:
:bighug:  :love:
:love: :blink: ^-^

Being a philosophy forum bears, my answer to  GW who is remarkable for his curriculum and the great number of publications cannot be simple.
If I find a bit of time I will try to put something together later anticipating there can be two possible paths/attitudes for an answer.

@leatherbear:

Think Progress' Zack Ford had this to say about the new campaign:

[T]hese improvements over blatant ostracization and condemnation could very well save the lives of many young people and help keep families together. However, with this approach, the Mormon Church has essentially only caught up to the “hate the sin, not the sinner” approaches of the Catholic Church and many evangelical Christians, which are still incredibly problematic.

Agreed with Zack bears  ^-^
The mormon church like other monocratic god book churches carries out strong proselytism activities and, in doing that, collides with competitors which has to compare to someway. From a general socio/philosophical point of view it has been noticed that a religion which is not  totalitarian doesn't/shouldn't create a church so it could seem easier to  think this partucular concession stems more from  a clash of powers than anything else.
Nothing to be worried about I'd say though. A bit of competition between opposed totalitarianisms can prove useful every now and then for some profitable side effects it might get or did you believe by chance the main reason for the Secession War was black people freedom and equality? 

@myrea:

Well put that is teh culmination of secular thinking, however tho we as individuals are coming to that, the society still lingers to a majority of "retainers" which cling to formatated ways of thinking, I'd go further to say it's a common situation regarding all matters.

Yes myr, of course one could feel confronted to a dilemma there. On one hand you/I/we all tend to realize our own societies (ways of living together) seem to need formatated ways of thinking we could, at least temporarily and juridically speaking,  name "laws"; on the other we can see/experience the existence of other human societies which can go on someway with different laws sets. Back in topic from here, while it could seem strange for a gay mole to advocate socially and juridically recognized not bigamous relationships we cannot forget this very thing is far from new. The islamic polygamous (or polygynic?) marriage of the rei maluco is a well known reality which is forbidden in the so said western countries and many other ones; in the opposite direction some Tibetan buddhist societies knew, accepted  and still accept polyandrious relationships. From an individual point of view, if a polygynic relationship was forced upon you or me this could easily seem a nightmare but it could be the paradise of one of those straight men who feel aroused by a lesbian relationship and of four rather lesbian/bisexual  women right?    Hmmm not sure if we already have matter for a general ahem "law" there. Myr? Bears?…. 

It's a very interesting problem bears. A simple solution could seem to take away the marriage question from the single States jurisdiction and treat it at a federal level binding all the 50 States to common federal statements. Likely to be politically difficult to achieve though cause it could seem  the bible belt States wouldn't take it very well. Concerning me anyway I must admit I've never strongly advocated the gay marriage for the simple reason I'd prefer to abolish the straight one in its actual usual strictly bigamous form which would be always permitted of course but only as one of the possible juridically regulated life in common forms