Posts made by Spintendo

@MrMazda:

the more interesting part remains that in previous articles similar to this that I've read, it was also noted that during the pregnancy, the amount of hormones that the fetus is exposed to proportionately tended to influence the sexual orientation of the resulting child.

Hormones certainly have their place in the process of cell signaling, but they have also been offered as reasons for actions they were not involved in. A power outtage in a town may be the reason why, when traffic lights failed, an accident occurred at an intersection between two vehicles. But an accident at that same intersection last week with no power outtage, as well as the hundreds of non-accidents which occured all over town the night of the outtage, seems to suggest that offering a random event as an explanation will, by definition, only explain one random event.

It's much more likely that genes, and not "hormones" enable homosexuality. Those genes are passed on to us by our mostly heterosexual parents because there is a useful reason for keeping them. And as The Architect told Neo at the end of the 2nd Matrix, things can become useful if they are predictable.

Why has the homosexuality gene maintained itself for so long, when an increase for the risk for homosexuality would theoretically lead to decreased reproductive success? Because keeping it increases mating success in heterosexuals. This mechanism, called antagonistic pleiotropy favors genes that increase the risk for homosexuality because they increase the number of sex partners in the relatives of homosexuals. It's useful.

Given that we are observing only a snapshot of evolution, antagonistic pleiotropy may help in explaining to us what our limited knowledge of genetic variations, as well as our "hormonal imbalance" reasons, have failed to do.
:hug2:

From what I understand, Tracy Morgan plays a fictional character named Tracy Jordan, who basically just acts like a sensationalized version of who we think Tracy Morgan is, except maybe that's who Tracy Morgan is, and there is no difference between Tracy Jordan and Tracy Morgan.  Now THATS twisted.

This '30 Rock' nonsense makes me chuckle though cause its probably the most upscale black-face-wave show where they use him as 'negro comedy relief'….. But does the guy really function as a 'think piece' about the condition and the perception of the black male in America, or as the black man who crashed the white man's party and does not feel like he belongs, gains acceptance by embracing the sambo stereotype and is really an aimless artist looking to be 'totally sensational' or whatever... I think its the latter.

:afr:

@Jmswofl0:

The problem is, I don't see he talking to anyone

Depending on how long hes been going there, and how often hes actually there, the fact that he doesnt speak to others may be a sign that he is introverted–someone who keeps to himself and is difficult to open up to others.

An introverted person presents a unique set of challenges, and unless youre the type of person that enjoys puzzles like Sudoku, it may become frustrating. I'm one of those sudoku people, and ive played matchmaker for tons of friends of mine ...its just like putting together a puzzle.

If this person speaks to no one in the gym, then your search for those he is friends with must move outside of the gym as well. The other purpose of going to gyms (social as opposed to physical) has been replicated online....and these social media sites, the popular (and gay) ones where you live, give you two possibilities: he either uses them, or he does not. Finding out which is your next step and like fishing, prolly the longest and most boring step, unless you like fishing...because finding a boyfriend is like fishing and sudoku-- if you like both then the sky's the limit!

And all of this may not catch you that particular guy, but it moves a lot of others in front of your radar screen, you dig?

:love:

In Virginia, a state where the Richmond-city intelligentsia have directed the conversation about this bank and how hanging up a flag representing equality is the most vile thing the bank could've done.

Rainbow Flag Goes Up; Letters Flow In
By SABRINA TAVERNISE of The New York Times

RICHMOND, Va. — The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond ran a rainbow flag up its flagpole last week and has been hearing about it ever since. From conservative groups who are outraged. From gay rights groups who are pleased. And from state lawmakers on both sides who just cannot seem to stop talking about it.

The bank unfurled the flag on June 1, at the request of a group of gay and lesbian employees in honor of gay pride month. One day later, Bob Marshall, a Republican in the House of Delegates and an outspoken opponent on gay rights issues, was moved to write a letter to the bank’s president, saying that the flag was inappropriate for a quasi-governmental entity.

Gay and lesbian “behavior,” he wrote, “undermines the American economy, shortens lives, adds significantly to illness, increases health costs, promotes venereal diseases,” among other things.

That prompted a series of outraged rejoinders from gay rights advocates, including Adam Ebbin, a gay lawmaker from Northern Virginia who said that despite Mr. Marshall’s views, things had “gotten better for L.G.B.T. Virginians.” In many ways, the controversy mirrors the changing demographics of this fast-growing state, whose traditions and habits are mixing with an influx of immigrants and young professionals in the northern part of the state. Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. The flag, he said, symbolizes “values of being open and inclusive,” and shows that the bank is “a place that doesn’t discriminate.” That is important in Virginia, said James Parrish, executive director of Equality Virginia, because House Republicans have twice blocked a bill that would protect state employees from discrimination by sexual orientation.

Rainbows, which festoon entire neighborhoods in some cities during gay pride month, are hard to spot in Richmond, and Mr. Parrish said the flag outside the bank was “noticeable.” “This is not Greenwich Village or Hell’s Kitchen,” he said. One of the most popular arguments by the flag’s opponents was that the bank is a government institution and so should not be displaying a flag that promotes a cause. And now that they are, the argument goes, they have an obligation to other causes.

“We hope there would be an even hand played when a Christian requests the Christian flag in September during Christian Heritage month,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy group. Mr. Strader’s response is that the bank is in fact privately owned, as are all regional Federal Reserves, and that it considers requests by employees — this was the first one — but not the general public.

Mr. Marshall, 67, has been vocal on gay issues. He told The Washington Post last year that he was concerned gay troops would spread venereal disease. He was also a sponsor of Virginia’s ban on gay marriage. Mr. Strader said the bank “anticipates” that it will respond to Mr. Marshall’s letter. Meanwhile, Mr. Marshall has written an opinion article that he said is scheduled to run on Sunday in The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“I am sure this flag and or Fed story will not end here,” he said.

:crazy2:

Some of the best information you can get about people is from other people. Find out if anyone at that gym communicates with him, even casually, and observe as much information (as in watching who he talks to) as is possible.

Before you try to talk with him directly you should get to know those people first,  then your chances of meeting him increase if you already know his acquaintences…finally meeting him through an intermediary is the goal here since being introduced through a mutual acquantance bypasses a lot of the personal safeguards and barriers that people put up with new friends in their lives.... meeting the friend of a friend puts people "at ease" and is much smoother and workable than directly approaching him.

It's wonderful to see people, after years and years of living in a dark and ignorant world of faith and religion, opening their minds to see the world fresh and anew — bathed brightly in the sunlight of Reason and Knowledge — and coming to it better late than never.

;D

If Jesus had been executed 20 years ago instead of 2,000 years ago, people would all be wearing little electric chair necklaces. I dont know how much of a turn-on that would be.

:afr:

This problem of privacy and consent is one that the people of Cameroon, the Fang, having strong opinions on privacy, dealt with shortly after the day a group of anthroplogists arrived carrying a tall and slender wooden studio camera to use in their documentation and research activities. The picture taking was inturrupted soonafter, and villagers soon strongly prohibited and discouraged such things from happening–because, as they understood it, they believed such a thing would not impress their local spirits, the only ones permitted to make magic, and being upset--disaster would ensue.

It was said that the local spirits, worshiped as gods by the village, and quite powerful, had spoken-- and let it be known that only bad things would come from the use of the white mans wooden box, a box which harnessed the light of a person....taken after being placed infront of the person..this would surely darken and destroy their souls before their journey to the place of their ancestors. to record them and their image, they would have felt deeply and personally "violated" .."Please do not bring this shame upon us" the Fang village elders said. The white anthropologists took the pictures anyways, thinking nothing wrong in doing so.

Now, this early form of voyeurism wasn't a plague or a problem, or even an issue, until one day a very well-intentioned and well-meaning research assistent somewhere inside the group had the bright idea to try and explain to the Fang what a camera was…...a monumental mistake of course because explaining the mechanics of light-processed image reproduction to individuals who had no place, patience, or time for such a concept is like explaining Socialist Realism to Lady Gaga...so of course the Fang said "no way" ....because hello!! eternal exile from the spirit world of the ancestors was NOT a sufficient reason enough to help the white man and his dangerous use of these "WoodBoxes of Person & Animal-kept-Light." The village now contained 2 other boxes, to join the original one that, as every villager whispered, was for weeks now known to be carefully collecting its grouping of souls inside.

At this point you might wonder, how much harm could come to that Fang village with their "violated" sense of dignity now soiled by the white mans flashpowder and shoeprints, stamped upon them forever.... and all the way in england, people  "looking" at pictures taken of them without their consent.... this was a cruel and indignant way to hurt people, right? and by bad i mean it did what to the Fang again?? Hurt their feelings? feelings that were created not by the white man and his magic but by the idea of the unknown and the uncontrollable? whos responsible for that feeling?

Not them, thought the white men. Hiding the picture taking was probably easier in the long run they reasoned..(even though "hiding" isnt the right word, since "hiding behind the tree" to a people raised to live and survive with attention to every single aspect of movement or noise in the wild soon makes "hiding" an exercise in futility). so they did what any moral, upstanding member of the community would do--they lied. They had that same assistant who had started all the trouble, a nervous woman named Eleanor, go back and explain to them that they should no longer worry…. it suddenly "wasnt" a camera... better yet,  all three of the hideous boxes were now, according to Eleanor, "something else that is not a camera, or camera-like in any way."

Ultimately, what the pictures taken were used for apparently didnt bring armageddon down upon the Fang village. How? Because the well-kept Village had its own set of important problems to tackle, just as serious as the nosy white men and their field studies: there was rain to pray for; witches to find and their spells to counter; crop-giving and water-bearing spirits to summon; fish to catch; and newborn babies to feed. Life goes on.

So, is voyuerism wrong? who does it really hurt? And why?

It's like removing a band-aid. Most people want to avoid the pain, and think that slowly pulling it off is best…. duh!?!what crap!  rip it off quickly and get it over with.

::)

Clicking Search will bring back the default results (all torrents in all catagories, except the dead ones) everything but the kitchen sink, as they say….

Once you have set your desired search parameters (under the Profile link), you can click "browse" and only those you've previously set will show.

@fancydude:

Further, to say the Catholic church has demonized human sexuality unmatched by any other institution - it might even be true - but the world is a big place and several millennia is long time - you must indeed be the font of all knowledge to make that claim!

I don't need to. You made that claim for me, just a few sentences prior:

@fancydude:

There are few institutions as large as the Catholic Church with as long a history to compare it to.

And then there is this gem:

@fancydude:

I don't understand it, can't explain it and don't excuse it.

Well you got 2 out of 3 right. But please do continue to post in other areas, as I truly appreciate the spirited debate! 

As far as going on tangents as one poster said, I think that's the beauty of forums – and that we're all adults here who can handle the road, wherever it takes us.

@fancydude:

Find ONE Catholic school that preaches hatred for everything non Catholic, or one western democracy where the official policy is the annihiliation of a country such as Israel and I'll eat my words…...Nothing in the west comes close to this, they are not acting on behalf of a larger religious organization.  If I'm wrong, let me know.

The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo. Indeed, this organization still opposes the use of contraception: preferring, instead, that the poorest people on earth be blessed with the largest families and the shortest lives. As a consequence of this hallowed and incorrigible stupidity, the Church has condemned generations of decent people to shame and hypocrisy — or to Neolithic fecundity, poverty, and death by AIDS. Add to this inhumanity the artifice of cloistered celibacy, and you now have an institution — one of the wealthiest on earth — that preferentially attracts pederasts, pedophiles, and sexual sadists into its ranks, promotes them into positions of authority, and grants them priviliged access to children. Finally, consider that vast numbers of children will be born out of wedlock, and their unwed mothers vilified, wherever Church teaching holds way — leading boys and girls by the thousands to be abandoned to Church-run orphanages only to be raped and terrorized by the clergy. The evidence suggests that the misery of these children was facilitated and concealed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church at every level, up to and including Cardinal Ratzinger, who personally oversaw the Vaticans response to this abuse. What did this wise and compassionate man do? Complaints were set aside, witnesses pressured into silence, bishops praised for their defiance of secular authority, and offending priests were relocated only to destroy fresh lives in unsuspecting parishes. It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization devoted—not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venial sin — but to the sexual enslavement of children.

Here, in this ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism, we mortals can finally glimpse how strangely perfect are the ways of the Lord.

@fancydude:

I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally.  And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.

Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did two thousand years ago—and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Having heard something about the medical discoveries of the last hundred years, most of us no longer equate disease with sin or demonic possession… while having learned about the known distances between objects in our universe, most of us find the idea that it was created six thousand years ago impossible to take seriously.

Such concessions to modernity do not suggest for even a moment that faith is compatible with reason, or that our religious institutions are open to new learning: rather, it is that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") certain articles of faith is now overwhelming. This modern view of Western religion is nothing of the sort.... the Western religions are "modern" through no choice of their own, because they know that anyone who looks up in the sky and sees that humans can fly inside of large metal machines called airplanes will have conceded that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering, and medicine since the time of Moses.

You have to remember that Western religions are more modern and liberal not by choice; The barbaric and blood-soaked period of time when the Catholic Church held real and actual power over much of Europe 500 years ago, has today been sidelined by the neglect of a more well-informed and educated society. If anything it's our institutions of learning that deserve that credit, not the Vatican.

@fancydude:

If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is.  Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both?   Which sources are valid?  Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid?   Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story?  There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true.  So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?

That is an excellent question… We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us so. Reliance upon the authority of experts, and upon the testimony of ordinary people, is the stuff of which worldviews are made. In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us at second hand.

How do you know that falling from a great height is hazardous to your health? Unless you have witnessed someone die in this way, you have adopted this belief on the authority of others. This is not a problem. Life is too short, and the world too complex, for any of us to go it alone. We are ever reliant on the intelligence and accuracy, if not he kindness, of strangers.

This does not suggest, however, that all forms of authority are valid; nor does it suggest that even the best authorities will always prove reliable. There are good arguments and bad ones, precise observations and imprecise ones; and each of us has to be the final judge of whether or not it is reasonable to adopt a given belief about the world.

:cool2:

I apologize for overlooking your questions. Allow me to answer each one now:

@fancydude:

Spin Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq?  Esp. as a Gay male?

I would like to live in Varennes, a city outside of Paris.

@fancydude:

I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test:  What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion?

First, the difference between two types of attitudes: explicit and implicit.

Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular religious groups before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask you to report or describe them.
An implicit attitude is not so straightforward. One example is a stereotype, which is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control.

Implicit and Explicit attitudes dont necessarily have to agree, in fact it is more often the case that they dont. There are two reasons why direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) attitudes may not be the same. The simpler explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitude. For example, if a professor asks a student "Do you like soap operas?" a student who is fully aware of spending two hours each day watching soap operas may nevertheless say "no" because of being embarrassed (unwilling) to reveal this fondness.

The second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. For example, if asked "Do you like Arabs?" many Americans will respond "yes" because they regard themselves as unprejudiced. However, an IAT may reveal that these same Americans have automatic negative associations toward Arabs. Americans who show such a response are unaware of their implicit negativity and are therefore unable to report it explicitly. The unwilling-unable distinction is like the difference between hiding something from others versus something being hidden from you.  In order to see if the two "agree" You must compare the two.

The IAT does this by asking you to pair two concepts (e.g., christian and good, or islam and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if christian and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the 'E' or 'I' key) to these two. If Islam and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.

@fancydude:

Am I expressing myself clearly?

Your skills as an interlocutor could use some polishing. It is very possible that you, as I suspect, possess an automatic preference for Christian based mythology as opposed to Islam based mythology. I also suspect that you have absolutely no clue that you have that preference. Everyone has ways of being that are in some way not as "correct or fair" as we would like to think they are.That test is one practical way to remain alert to the existence of that preference, recognizing that it may intrude in conversations here in this forum. Identifying them is the key!! In that way you could decide to embark on consciously planned conversations here in the forums that would compensate for known unconscious preferences and beliefs. This would involve posting in ways that you would not naturally post– for example, pointing out morally repugnant items in the bible and condemning them first, instead of pointing out possible excuses first. Identifying effective mechanisms for managing and changing unwanted automatic preferences is a goal that I believe everyone either has, or should have, shouldn't they? The good news is that automatic preferences, automatic as they are, are also malleable.

:cool2:

Right on. 

So was the score you got surprising? or was it just what you expected…  I took the weight IAT the other day and it told me I was moderately biased against large people....and i thought i had a good tolerance for the weight-challenged...  heheh oh well  ???

@fancydude:

but I would have had a lot more faith in it if had asked my age & religion, location etc.  AFTER it interpreted the raw test data!

The reason why it asks you your opinions of different religions at the beginning (the hot & cold feeling questions) is to establish them before the test is taken, since the test itself could influence what opinions are offered (the observer-effect). Then it can compare and contrast the "you" as you see yourself with the "you" who responds to the word associations. ….After the test is finished i think it asks you what your religion is.

@fancydude:

one alleged this link (which said it was Pew research) was bogus -so I went to to the actual Pew website…...

Pew is actually a great think-tank, they do a lot of fascinating stuff there.

Fancydude you say that youre not biased towards Christianity and I believe that you believe that to be true. And while its pretty well known that people don't always 'speak their minds', it is suspected that people don't always 'know their minds'. Finding out about those possible divisions can be kinda fun and completely fascinating…. so I was wondering if you might be interested in taking this test, its called an implicit association test, from Project Implicit which is out at Harvard (so you can be sure it's not some silly online test).

hxxps://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

if your interested in seeing how it works, and taking the test online, go to that website and click on "demonstration." It will then present a long list, go ahead and choose the one marked "Religion IAT". It asks some questions to get a baseline and then consists of reacting to words that appear on the screen. Theres actually a lot of IATs that help to reveal biases in people, it can be pretty interesting, and understanding those divergences between what we think we know and what we really know is what these researchers out at Harvard are trying to do. The demonstration tests are just that- demonstrations, with no data collected, except for the "featured" tests, which change weekly I believe.

@fancydude:

as I mentioned on another thread with you I think - people couldn't  choose between being a slave and getting a job at the corner Walmart!  That option wasn't there. People evolved.

I remember this, and it didnt quite make sense there at first. But I understand its reason for being put forth. This inductive (allowing for) view of religion — slavery as a corollary to the times — contrasts with my and raphjd's deductive (not allowing for) view of religion for one particular reason — as an example of parts of the Bible that had to be there, because of the times, and therefore that edict and many others should be acceptable — as a way of bringing in the back door (slavery justified=Bible OK) what won't fit in through the front (slavery is abhorrent=Bible not OK). I can see no other reason why this was brought up, other than to imply justification for it being there in the first place.

But notice how other timeless provisions in the Good Book are not directly mentioned by him: Children out of line? beat them with a rod {Proverbs 13:24,20:30, and 23:13-14}; Children talking back to parents? kill them {Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7} in addition to provisions that we stone people to death for heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, worshipping graven images, and practicing sorcery. These are not mentioned, and for good reason — it is only by ignoring such barbarisms that the Bible can be reconciled with life in the modern world.

His argument shows that religion has nothing underwriting it other than the unacknowledged neglect of the letter of the divine law.

At 48 IQ hes more than three standard deviations below the mean….. essentially hes 2 years old. Keeping people at those levels away from sexual activity is well known and practiced for hetero males and females but in gay situations?? I dont think there would be a legal standing, since he cannot get pregnant and may not get anyone pregnant (in theory).

A 48 IQ who lives unsupervised is no small achievement…. so if his boyfriend is IQ-comparable they needn't worry, since they already live together, its water under the bridge.