Author Topic: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?  (Read 9105 times)

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2017, 11:51:38 AM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2017, 11:58:03 AM »
I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

Perhaps you can point us to some of your work.

aldermanparklover

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2017, 12:05:30 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

Tacachale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2017, 01:09:04 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I highly doubt you were the one who coined the term "Obummer". However, I don't see how the term is homophobic. On the other hand, the fact that you ascribe "perversions" to people who challenge you are telling.

That's besides the conspiracy theories, which seem to be having a big day on Metro Jacksonville today.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2017, 01:54:58 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I don't consider homosexuality to be a perversion. Do you?

Where I come from, the word 'bummer' carries a certain meaning when it is applied to a person. You may have not meant that. But one thing is for sure - you probably didn't coin the name.

I find it hard to understand how someone could actually 'hate' Obama. I am not a fan of his AT ALL. But I don't hate the man. Your vitriol leads me to think you're probably deluded.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2017, 01:56:34 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I highly doubt you were the one who coined the term "Obummer". However, I don't see how the term is homophobic. On the other hand, the fact that you ascribe "perversions" to people who challenge you are telling.

That's besides the conspiracy theories, which seem to be having a big day on Metro Jacksonville today.

The word 'bummer' is slang for homosexual. But then it occurred to me (after posting) that it may be a British term. I am usually good at keeping my cultures straight (no pun intended), but after a decade, I do slip up sometimes.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

aldermanparklover

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2017, 02:28:24 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I don't consider homosexuality to be a perversion. Do you?

Where I come from, the word 'bummer' carries a certain meaning when it is applied to a person. You may have not meant that. But one thing is for sure - you probably didn't coin the name.

I find it hard to understand how someone could actually 'hate' Obama. I am not a fan of his AT ALL. But I don't hate the man. Your vitriol leads me to think you're probably deluded.

From American Heritage Dictionary ...

 per•ver•sion (pər-vûrˈzhən, -shən)

    n. The act of perverting.
    n. The state of being perverted.
    n.  A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.

Homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior so yeah, perversion is the correct term.

I just concocted / use "obummer" because he (for me) is a bummer, as in depressing = bummed out.

Tacachale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2017, 03:00:43 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I highly doubt you were the one who coined the term "Obummer". However, I don't see how the term is homophobic. On the other hand, the fact that you ascribe "perversions" to people who challenge you are telling.

That's besides the conspiracy theories, which seem to be having a big day on Metro Jacksonville today.

The word 'bummer' is slang for homosexual. But then it occurred to me (after posting) that it may be a British term. I am usually good at keeping my cultures straight (no pun intended), but after a decade, I do slip up sometimes.

Not to detract from this fascinating survey of human perversion, a topic area in which aldermanparklover appears to be an expert, but yeah, that must be a British term. The American sense means a disappointment or annoyance, as in, "oh, another thread derailed by homophobia and conspiracy theories? What a bummer."

The etymology is interesting and is separate from the UK sense. It comes from the German "bummler", meaning a lazy or feckless person. It was originally "bummer" in English, but was shortened to "bum" by the mid 19th century, with the same definition. "Bum" was later used in phrases  like "bum steer", "bum out", "bum rap" and, in the 1960s, "bummer" emerged to refer to a "bum" experience, especially one related to a drug trip.

The UK sense of "bummer" comes (I assume) from the sense of the word "bum" meaning "butt", as if gay men are the only ones who like butts.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2017, 03:35:09 PM »
When someone references "Soros" you pretty much know you can discount what they have to say, IMHO.

You just need to do better research then. I pretty much do political analysis for a living.

A good start for you would be a candid 20/20 interview of george soros done in the 90's (avail on youtube) that describes his political involvement overseas - by the time they visit another government project of his, Haiti, he is joined up by a then certain former first lady ...

I think you lost all credibility when you referred to the President as "Obummer". Not only is that childish and insulting, it's also homophobic. But whatever.

I hate obummer - everything he stands for is rotten and evil. I penned the name obummer because after he were first elected, I was actually depressed for the whole week (and I don't get emotionally affected by such things) BUT I knew, like a death row inmate on the day of his execution, that things were taking a turn for the worse.

He never should have been able to be elected in this country and there was a lot of behind the scenes quasi-criminal collusion with multiple organizations that had to take place to get him elected.

You attributing sexuality to my pet name for obummer only exposes you're own perversions, not mine.

I highly doubt you were the one who coined the term "Obummer". However, I don't see how the term is homophobic. On the other hand, the fact that you ascribe "perversions" to people who challenge you are telling.

That's besides the conspiracy theories, which seem to be having a big day on Metro Jacksonville today.

The word 'bummer' is slang for homosexual. But then it occurred to me (after posting) that it may be a British term. I am usually good at keeping my cultures straight (no pun intended), but after a decade, I do slip up sometimes.

Not to detract from this fascinating survey of human perversion, a topic area in which aldermanparklover appears to be an expert, but yeah, that must be a British term. The American sense means a disappointment or annoyance, as in, "oh, another thread derailed by homophobia and conspiracy theories? What a bummer."

The etymology is interesting and is separate from the UK sense. It comes from the German "bummler", meaning a lazy or feckless person. It was originally "bummer" in English, but was shortened to "bum" by the mid 19th century, with the same definition. "Bum" was later used in phrases  like "bum steer", "bum out", "bum rap" and, in the 1960s, "bummer" emerged to refer to a "bum" experience, especially one related to a drug trip.

The UK sense of "bummer" comes (I assume) from the sense of the word "bum" meaning "butt", as if gay men are the only ones who like butts.

I had forgotten that use of the term - and I assumed it was a reference to homosexuality as otherwise, "Obummer" is a really mild insult.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

aldermanparklover

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2017, 03:48:19 PM »
well unless stephendare is willing to concede that rape, pedophilia, beastiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism and any other sexual proclivity not pertaining to our biological mandate for procreation are legitimate and normal, then I stand validated in using the word perversion to describe homosexuality.

Btw, I'm very gay friendly but I'm not deluded enough to regard it as something other than what it is.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 03:52:35 PM by aldermanparklover »

aldermanparklover

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2017, 05:02:49 PM »
well unless stephendare is willing to concede that rape, beastiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism and any other sexual proclivity not pertaining to our biological mandate for procreation are legitimate and normal, then I stand validated in using the word perversion to describe homosexuality.

Btw, I'm very gay friendly but I'm not deluded enough to regard it as something other than what it is.

btw.  you are polite, not gay friendly.

OK, lets parse this.  Are the following legitimately 'abnormal'.

Rape, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism.  Those are the ones you named.

In order.

Rape.  It is criminal, it is horrible, it is often violent and fatal, and an act of force, but it is certainly not uncommon in the literal sense as it happens with great frequency and has happened since we first started recording stories.  For some really gruesome and disgusting stories about rape and dismemberment, you can check out one of the oldest books still in circulation, the Bible.  Let me commend you to one of the most infamous of them starting in the book of Judges 19:22

It is a crime of violence acted out sexually against a (by definition) unwilling partner. (three of your instances are. Dead people can't give consent, and most people would agree that inter species sex is rarely consensual.  In the case of Dolphin Human sex its usually an act of rape that is fatal for the human female.  Hippos who are raped by rogue elephants also seem to share a general dim view of the practice)

Bestiality truly is abnormal.  It is not reported in every society and culture throughout history, it is exceedingly rare and notoriously difficult to pull of without losing friends or exposing oneself to some rather savage infections.  Its rarity and inexplicability, I think, qualifies it as abnormal.

Incest is more common, and quite frowned upon outside of Kentucky and apparently Alabama, but it is more of a culturally defined thing.  If you recall, Father Abraham and Sarah, were brother and sister when they fled Ur of the Chaldeas together.  We consider sexual relations to be incestuous in any familial connection closer than second cousins.  That definition was arrived at rather late in our history, based on older notions of the germplasm.  So what we consider incest today would have been a perfectly acceptable match at the founding of the Republic. Illegal? yes. Unadvisable over generations in families with transmissible genetic disorders? definitely.  are there blurred lines about the definition of it, and therefore the scope of the behavior itself, Also definitely. 

Here are the pertinent scriptures: Start in Genesis 20:11
11Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12"Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;

Necrophilia is even rarer than bestiality, and almost certainly more fraught with both bacteriological and social downsides.  It also is not recorded with any frequency in all cultures and eras, and requires a fairly rugged constitution in order to even contemplate it.  True, there are fewer chances that the relationship might go badly, but that doesnt seem to have made it any more attractive or more widespread than a couple of creeps per century getting busted for it.  Almost all the modern cases are accompanied with extreme emotional disturbance, so there is some evidence that the two might be linked.  Definitely qualifies as abnormal as well as criminal and extremely poor form.

Sadism.  Have you checked out the number one bestselling book and film '50 Shades of Grey'?  Kind of huge with women of a certain age, if the very long lines at the local movie theatres are any indication. So, abnormal?  Hard to peg Grandma Kate and Aunt Jane as the vanguard of the abnormal set.

I think most people realize that same sex attractions are generally normal and positive.  Or at least as normal and positive as heterosexual attractions. 

However, I do think that hiring a bunch of prostitutes to pee all over each other in a bed that has been previously slept in by your political rival smacks of a deep seated abnormality.

Like was it the golden shower show or the fact that it was on a bed that Obama slept in that made the act appealing?


KOOOOOOOOOL-AIIIIIIID ... if you detach yourself from pure emotion, step back and look at the argument from a biological, scientific way (Darwinism) you see that humans are designed with very specific organs strictly for the purpose of reproduction (which happens to be a fundamental part of any species surviving)

and just like our big brains, a lot of energy (calories) is consumed / dedicated to our reproductive components, and the process of reproduction itself - whether it's finding a mate, copulating or bringing a child into this world, protecting / raising the child into maturity - we are hard wired to breed.

but sometimes things don't go as biologically planned and some people malfunction; they have no desire to mix genes to bring progeny forth. this is a disordered sexual state.

lets look at a similar problem in the same way - eating disorders. Would you tell an anorexic that not wanting to eat is ok, because it's part of who they are and there are cases of it in nature? or because it's not harming anyone else?

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2017, 05:14:03 PM »
well unless stephendare is willing to concede that rape, beastiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism and any other sexual proclivity not pertaining to our biological mandate for procreation are legitimate and normal, then I stand validated in using the word perversion to describe homosexuality.

Btw, I'm very gay friendly but I'm not deluded enough to regard it as something other than what it is.

btw.  you are polite, not gay friendly.

OK, lets parse this.  Are the following legitimately 'abnormal'.

Rape, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism.  Those are the ones you named.

In order.

Rape.  It is criminal, it is horrible, it is often violent and fatal, and an act of force, but it is certainly not uncommon in the literal sense as it happens with great frequency and has happened since we first started recording stories.  For some really gruesome and disgusting stories about rape and dismemberment, you can check out one of the oldest books still in circulation, the Bible.  Let me commend you to one of the most infamous of them starting in the book of Judges 19:22

It is a crime of violence acted out sexually against a (by definition) unwilling partner. (three of your instances are. Dead people can't give consent, and most people would agree that inter species sex is rarely consensual.  In the case of Dolphin Human sex its usually an act of rape that is fatal for the human female.  Hippos who are raped by rogue elephants also seem to share a general dim view of the practice)

Bestiality truly is abnormal.  It is not reported in every society and culture throughout history, it is exceedingly rare and notoriously difficult to pull of without losing friends or exposing oneself to some rather savage infections.  Its rarity and inexplicability, I think, qualifies it as abnormal.

Incest is more common, and quite frowned upon outside of Kentucky and apparently Alabama, but it is more of a culturally defined thing.  If you recall, Father Abraham and Sarah, were brother and sister when they fled Ur of the Chaldeas together.  We consider sexual relations to be incestuous in any familial connection closer than second cousins.  That definition was arrived at rather late in our history, based on older notions of the germplasm.  So what we consider incest today would have been a perfectly acceptable match at the founding of the Republic. Illegal? yes. Unadvisable over generations in families with transmissible genetic disorders? definitely.  are there blurred lines about the definition of it, and therefore the scope of the behavior itself, Also definitely. 

Here are the pertinent scriptures: Start in Genesis 20:11
11Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12"Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;

Necrophilia is even rarer than bestiality, and almost certainly more fraught with both bacteriological and social downsides.  It also is not recorded with any frequency in all cultures and eras, and requires a fairly rugged constitution in order to even contemplate it.  True, there are fewer chances that the relationship might go badly, but that doesnt seem to have made it any more attractive or more widespread than a couple of creeps per century getting busted for it.  Almost all the modern cases are accompanied with extreme emotional disturbance, so there is some evidence that the two might be linked.  Definitely qualifies as abnormal as well as criminal and extremely poor form.

Sadism.  Have you checked out the number one bestselling book and film '50 Shades of Grey'?  Kind of huge with women of a certain age, if the very long lines at the local movie theatres are any indication. So, abnormal?  Hard to peg Grandma Kate and Aunt Jane as the vanguard of the abnormal set.

I think most people realize that same sex attractions are generally normal and positive.  Or at least as normal and positive as heterosexual attractions. 

However, I do think that hiring a bunch of prostitutes to pee all over each other in a bed that has been previously slept in by your political rival smacks of a deep seated abnormality.

Like was it the golden shower show or the fact that it was on a bed that Obama slept in that made the act appealing?


KOOOOOOOOOL-AIIIIIIID ... if you detach yourself from pure emotion, step back and look at the argument from a biological, scientific way (Darwinism) you see that humans are designed with very specific organs strictly for the purpose of reproduction (which happens to be a fundamental part of any species surviving)

and just like our big brains, a lot of energy (calories) is consumed / dedicated to our reproductive components, and the process of reproduction itself - whether it's finding a mate, copulating or bringing a child into this world, protecting / raising the child into maturity - we are hard wired to breed.

but sometimes things don't go as biologically planned and some people malfunction; they have no desire to mix genes to bring progeny forth. this is a disordered sexual state.

lets look at a similar problem in the same way - eating disorders. Would you tell an anorexic that not wanting to eat is ok, because it's part of who they are and there are cases of it in nature? or because it's not harming anyone else?

I hate to wade in here (and, god help me, I will probably regret it) - but humans aren't the only species that practice homosexuality. So, if that's the case, then any argument about it being "unnatural" is flawed.

And Darwinism is a theory created by a man - it's not a law.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Tacachale

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6367
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2017, 05:36:00 PM »
well unless stephendare is willing to concede that rape, beastiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism and any other sexual proclivity not pertaining to our biological mandate for procreation are legitimate and normal, then I stand validated in using the word perversion to describe homosexuality.

Btw, I'm very gay friendly but I'm not deluded enough to regard it as something other than what it is.

btw.  you are polite, not gay friendly.

OK, lets parse this.  Are the following legitimately 'abnormal'.

Rape, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism.  Those are the ones you named.

In order.

Rape.  It is criminal, it is horrible, it is often violent and fatal, and an act of force, but it is certainly not uncommon in the literal sense as it happens with great frequency and has happened since we first started recording stories.  For some really gruesome and disgusting stories about rape and dismemberment, you can check out one of the oldest books still in circulation, the Bible.  Let me commend you to one of the most infamous of them starting in the book of Judges 19:22

It is a crime of violence acted out sexually against a (by definition) unwilling partner. (three of your instances are. Dead people can't give consent, and most people would agree that inter species sex is rarely consensual.  In the case of Dolphin Human sex its usually an act of rape that is fatal for the human female.  Hippos who are raped by rogue elephants also seem to share a general dim view of the practice)

Bestiality truly is abnormal.  It is not reported in every society and culture throughout history, it is exceedingly rare and notoriously difficult to pull of without losing friends or exposing oneself to some rather savage infections.  Its rarity and inexplicability, I think, qualifies it as abnormal.

Incest is more common, and quite frowned upon outside of Kentucky and apparently Alabama, but it is more of a culturally defined thing.  If you recall, Father Abraham and Sarah, were brother and sister when they fled Ur of the Chaldeas together.  We consider sexual relations to be incestuous in any familial connection closer than second cousins.  That definition was arrived at rather late in our history, based on older notions of the germplasm.  So what we consider incest today would have been a perfectly acceptable match at the founding of the Republic. Illegal? yes. Unadvisable over generations in families with transmissible genetic disorders? definitely.  are there blurred lines about the definition of it, and therefore the scope of the behavior itself, Also definitely. 

Here are the pertinent scriptures: Start in Genesis 20:11
11Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12"Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;

Necrophilia is even rarer than bestiality, and almost certainly more fraught with both bacteriological and social downsides.  It also is not recorded with any frequency in all cultures and eras, and requires a fairly rugged constitution in order to even contemplate it.  True, there are fewer chances that the relationship might go badly, but that doesnt seem to have made it any more attractive or more widespread than a couple of creeps per century getting busted for it.  Almost all the modern cases are accompanied with extreme emotional disturbance, so there is some evidence that the two might be linked.  Definitely qualifies as abnormal as well as criminal and extremely poor form.

Sadism.  Have you checked out the number one bestselling book and film '50 Shades of Grey'?  Kind of huge with women of a certain age, if the very long lines at the local movie theatres are any indication. So, abnormal?  Hard to peg Grandma Kate and Aunt Jane as the vanguard of the abnormal set.

I think most people realize that same sex attractions are generally normal and positive.  Or at least as normal and positive as heterosexual attractions. 

However, I do think that hiring a bunch of prostitutes to pee all over each other in a bed that has been previously slept in by your political rival smacks of a deep seated abnormality.

Like was it the golden shower show or the fact that it was on a bed that Obama slept in that made the act appealing?


KOOOOOOOOOL-AIIIIIIID ... if you detach yourself from pure emotion, step back and look at the argument from a biological, scientific way (Darwinism) you see that humans are designed with very specific organs strictly for the purpose of reproduction (which happens to be a fundamental part of any species surviving)

and just like our big brains, a lot of energy (calories) is consumed / dedicated to our reproductive components, and the process of reproduction itself - whether it's finding a mate, copulating or bringing a child into this world, protecting / raising the child into maturity - we are hard wired to breed.

but sometimes things don't go as biologically planned and some people malfunction; they have no desire to mix genes to bring progeny forth. this is a disordered sexual state.

lets look at a similar problem in the same way - eating disorders. Would you tell an anorexic that not wanting to eat is ok, because it's part of who they are and there are cases of it in nature? or because it's not harming anyone else?

Since you're whipping out the Darwin card, I'll do you one better. If homosexuality is an aberration to human reproduction, and reproduction is "a fundamental part of any species surviving", why hasn't the trait been eliminated through natural selection? Why would it continue to occur? Why would it occur in so many different species?

Well, there are multiple theories suggesting that homosexuality, and whatever combination of genes and other biological elements underlie it, does have evolutionary advantages, particularly in social creatures like us. Perhaps the genes helped us bond and formed tighter family and social units. Perhaps individuals who didn't reproduce were freer to assist their siblings, nieces and nephews, who would survive to pass on part of their genes. Perhaps the genes (or whatever) that lead to homosexuality in some carriers have reproductive advantages in other carriers. And there's also the fact that LGBT people (especially the B) are capable of sexual reproduction. It's likely you've encountered many gay people who have kids through past relationships or surrogacy.

Thread: DERAILED.

Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

aldermanparklover

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2017, 05:52:22 PM »
well unless stephendare is willing to concede that rape, beastiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism and any other sexual proclivity not pertaining to our biological mandate for procreation are legitimate and normal, then I stand validated in using the word perversion to describe homosexuality.

Btw, I'm very gay friendly but I'm not deluded enough to regard it as something other than what it is.

btw.  you are polite, not gay friendly.

OK, lets parse this.  Are the following legitimately 'abnormal'.

Rape, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, sadism.  Those are the ones you named.

In order.

Rape.  It is criminal, it is horrible, it is often violent and fatal, and an act of force, but it is certainly not uncommon in the literal sense as it happens with great frequency and has happened since we first started recording stories.  For some really gruesome and disgusting stories about rape and dismemberment, you can check out one of the oldest books still in circulation, the Bible.  Let me commend you to one of the most infamous of them starting in the book of Judges 19:22

It is a crime of violence acted out sexually against a (by definition) unwilling partner. (three of your instances are. Dead people can't give consent, and most people would agree that inter species sex is rarely consensual.  In the case of Dolphin Human sex its usually an act of rape that is fatal for the human female.  Hippos who are raped by rogue elephants also seem to share a general dim view of the practice)

Bestiality truly is abnormal.  It is not reported in every society and culture throughout history, it is exceedingly rare and notoriously difficult to pull of without losing friends or exposing oneself to some rather savage infections.  Its rarity and inexplicability, I think, qualifies it as abnormal.

Incest is more common, and quite frowned upon outside of Kentucky and apparently Alabama, but it is more of a culturally defined thing.  If you recall, Father Abraham and Sarah, were brother and sister when they fled Ur of the Chaldeas together.  We consider sexual relations to be incestuous in any familial connection closer than second cousins.  That definition was arrived at rather late in our history, based on older notions of the germplasm.  So what we consider incest today would have been a perfectly acceptable match at the founding of the Republic. Illegal? yes. Unadvisable over generations in families with transmissible genetic disorders? definitely.  are there blurred lines about the definition of it, and therefore the scope of the behavior itself, Also definitely. 

Here are the pertinent scriptures: Start in Genesis 20:11
11Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12"Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;

Necrophilia is even rarer than bestiality, and almost certainly more fraught with both bacteriological and social downsides.  It also is not recorded with any frequency in all cultures and eras, and requires a fairly rugged constitution in order to even contemplate it.  True, there are fewer chances that the relationship might go badly, but that doesnt seem to have made it any more attractive or more widespread than a couple of creeps per century getting busted for it.  Almost all the modern cases are accompanied with extreme emotional disturbance, so there is some evidence that the two might be linked.  Definitely qualifies as abnormal as well as criminal and extremely poor form.

Sadism.  Have you checked out the number one bestselling book and film '50 Shades of Grey'?  Kind of huge with women of a certain age, if the very long lines at the local movie theatres are any indication. So, abnormal?  Hard to peg Grandma Kate and Aunt Jane as the vanguard of the abnormal set.

I think most people realize that same sex attractions are generally normal and positive.  Or at least as normal and positive as heterosexual attractions. 

However, I do think that hiring a bunch of prostitutes to pee all over each other in a bed that has been previously slept in by your political rival smacks of a deep seated abnormality.

Like was it the golden shower show or the fact that it was on a bed that Obama slept in that made the act appealing?


KOOOOOOOOOL-AIIIIIIID ... if you detach yourself from pure emotion, step back and look at the argument from a biological, scientific way (Darwinism) you see that humans are designed with very specific organs strictly for the purpose of reproduction (which happens to be a fundamental part of any species surviving)

and just like our big brains, a lot of energy (calories) is consumed / dedicated to our reproductive components, and the process of reproduction itself - whether it's finding a mate, copulating or bringing a child into this world, protecting / raising the child into maturity - we are hard wired to breed.

but sometimes things don't go as biologically planned and some people malfunction; they have no desire to mix genes to bring progeny forth. this is a disordered sexual state.

lets look at a similar problem in the same way - eating disorders. Would you tell an anorexic that not wanting to eat is ok, because it's part of who they are and there are cases of it in nature? or because it's not harming anyone else?

Since you're whipping out the Darwin card, I'll do you one better. If homosexuality is an aberration to human reproduction, and reproduction is "a fundamental part of any species surviving", why hasn't the trait been eliminated through natural selection? Why would it continue to occur? Why would it occur in so many different species?

Well, there are multiple theories suggesting that homosexuality, and whatever combination of genes and other biological elements underlie it, does have evolutionary advantages, particularly in social creatures like us. Perhaps the genes helped us bond and formed tighter family and social units. Perhaps individuals who didn't reproduce were freer to assist their siblings, nieces and nephews, who would survive to pass on part of their genes. Perhaps the genes (or whatever) that lead to homosexuality in some carriers have reproductive advantages in other carriers. And there's also the fact that LGBT people (especially the B) are capable of sexual reproduction. It's likely you've encountered many gay people who have kids through past relationships or surrogacy.

Thread: DERAILED.



I'll do you one one better - why hasn't down syndrome been eliminated? diabetes? cleft palate? spina bifida? club foot? et al

heck we used to sterilize mentally retarded people, prevent them from reproducing but people are still born with mental defects - this is part of the hazard of genes splices. 

As of last summer, medical science believes that homosexuality is a birth defect; that happens in utero by events external to the womb - this is the current believe of the cause but mind you, not definitive.

As far as your social THEORIES on the benefits of gay people in society, none of that is science - just wishful thinking. If there were a biological benefit to gays in society, I speculate it wouldn't have taken 5,000 years of recorded human history (and who knows how much prehistoric history) before homosexuals were treated as peers among normal people.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2642
    • Facebook
Re: Why Is Trump So Reluctant to Accept Claims of Russian Hacking?
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2017, 05:56:33 PM »

As of last summer, medical science believes that homosexuality is a birth defect; that happens in utero by events external to the womb - this is the current believe of the cause but mind you, not definitive.



If that's true, then it proves homosexuality is natural. Birth defects are natural.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”