Misconceptions that piss you off.

[∞]

Whether it be political, social, historical, scientific, anything really.

Heres some of mine:
- When people think if somethings a theory there is not an ounce of truth in it.

-Because I am bad at writing essays and understanding literature that I am an idiot.

-The second law of thermodynamics proves that the big bang and evolution are incorrect.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That because I'm a communist I support everything Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il etc, ever did or said.

That being atheist doesn't mean not believing in God; it actually means I believe in God and I hate God. Therefore I'm not a Christian because I'm blaming God for something bad that happened in the past and I'll probably get over if they explain to me that "God is love" or something like that.

[∞]

Oh, that we evolved from chimpanzees (LOL Y R DEY STILL AROUND) and not a common ancestor.

[La Comédie Noire]

That capitalists are job creators, when they are actually just toll takers between the producers and the needs of the community.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That homosexuality is a choice (it is amazing how many dipshits still believe this is the case).

[Smyg]

Scandinavia = Socialist paradise. :cursing:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That being anti-Obama makes you a conservative.

[praxis1966]

That anarchy = chaos.

[citizen of industry]

That unions are a business with wealthy leaders out to make a profit through dues.

[CommunityBeliever]

The misconception that we shouldn't be totally fucking pissed off about the capitalist system in its entirety.

[Wanted Man]

What is annoying is the ease with which people buy completely ridiculous governmental soundbites:

"We've got to raise the pension age so that the old people cannot enrich themselves while keeping the young empty-handed."
(apparently, we will never grow old)

"The baker around the corner should not have to pay for the university education of a lawyer's son."
(on abolishing study grants)

"Going to college is an investment in yourself. Besides, there is too much fear of loans in this country; a bit of debt won't hurt you! We need to do this to remain a viable knowledge economy."
(this is actually a cocktail of three sentences of complete bullshit about study financing)

[black magick hustla]

ppl who think wingnuts in the american media are everything that can be said about average folks' opinions

people that don't know how to learn from "deep books". "deep books" are not interesting because some dead person that was smart said something, but because a lot of the times they attempt to answer questions (regardless if the answer is wrong) about issues that are relevant to most people.

people who think jargon in some corners of the humanities academia is as legitimate as scientific jargon

people who think there was once a time where universities were just about learning and now they are just "buisnesses"

[Nox]

People who think race/nationality/sex/age/sexuality means anything.

[EvilRedGuy]

That homosexuality is a choice (it is amazing how many dipshits still believe this is the case).

So you believe that YOU ARE BORN WITH HOMOSEXUALITY? WTF??
It is something you choice to be, nothing genetic forces you to be it.


And the "Big Bang" dosen't fucking exist

[thefinalmarch]

So you believe that YOU ARE BORN WITH HOMOSEXUALITY? WTF??
It is something you choice to be, nothing genetic forces you to be it.
Because you actually can't tell the tone of an individual over the internet:

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." - Royal College of Psychiatrists (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)

[socialistjustin]

That because Ilike the Lakers and Bears means I am some kind of glory hunter. No muthafucker, I am from a town that has no sports teams and I had to pick and choose teams from other cities. I think my support of the Habs, Fulham and Mariners would point out I am not a glory hunter.


Sorry, but everybody took all the good political ones.

[praxis1966]

People who think that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Yes, I have encountered people who said to me, "What denomination are you?" (presumptive much?) "I'm not any, really," I've responded, "I'm an agnostic." "What's that?" they'd say. I'd then explain it, to which I'd get the response, "So, you're an atheist." *facepalm*

[xub3rn00dlex]

That because you pretty much fit the definition of what people refer to as a "guido" that makes you some kind of unintelligent jackass.

[Desperado]

People who think that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. Yes, I have encountered people who said to me, "What denomination are you?" (presumptive much?) "I'm not any, really," I've responded, "I'm an agnostic." "What's that?" they'd say. I'd then explain it, to which I'd get the response, "So, you're an atheist." *facepalm*

I'm sorry to say I was going to write "people who think agnostic means 'I don't know/haven't decided'". It actually means can't know (as per the definition of the guy who made the word), and so is not only a form of atheism but also a very explicit form.

The confusing a theory with a hypothesis similarly drives me nuts, as does the anarchy is chaos or disorder business. And of course that "China/Russia/Cuba = Communism" or "Communism works in theory but not in practice".

[EvilRedGuy]

Because you actually can't tell the tone of an individual over the internet:

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice." - Royal College of Psychiatrists (http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf)

LOL! So you are saying im Bisexual because of my genetics? You do realize that after being asexual when i was younger i never knew about anything other than heterosexuality, its because of how the social environment plays out, that being anything but heterosexual is unnormal, you are expected to be heterosexual by some parents/some people so thats why you choose to be hetero. Please don't bullshit me with this "genetics" crap. It's society and peoples in them that effects you, thats why kids with only a mother/father or lesbian/gay parents more or likely becomes feminine/masculine. Genetics belong to Nazism. Not here.

And Dzhugashvili Please answer my posts instead of neg-repping, thank you.

[La Comédie Noire]

people who think there was once a time where universities were just about learning and now they are just "buisnesses"

Thank you! usually this goes hand in hand with people complaining how dumb kids are now a days.

People hate the youth for some reason.

[piet11111]

Being a public servant does not make me your employee i wont use my machine to brush your pathway to your frontdoor because you demand it in fact i am definitely not going to do that because you demand it.

[Jose Gracchus]

Anything DNZ writes.

[praxis1966]

I'm sorry to say I was going to write "people who think agnostic means 'I don't know/haven't decided'". It actually means can't know (as per the definition of the guy who made the word), and so is not only a form of atheism but also a very explicit form.

Right, well that's more or less why I describe myself that way. For all intents and purposes I'm an atheist... Given current linguistic limitations, it's the only semantically accurate descriptor of the way I think, especially since (in connotation at least) the term atheist is absolutist. At any rate, you used nearly the exact words in your post that I did in the conversation I had in mind. I literally said, "It's not possible to prove one way or the other there's a god." The people I was talking to said, "So you're an atheist?" "No," said I, "atheists are certain that there is no god. Period. I'm saying there's no evidence. It's like with aliens..." That's when they're eyes glassed over. As soon as I was quiet, shouts of, "You gotta believe in something!" Followed by my rather puerile, "Uh No. I don't. I don't have to do anything I don't wanna." lol

That's what I get for answering religious inquiries after closing time in a bar I suppose.

[Rafiq]

Karl Marx invented communism and spent his whole life, including everything he wrote, talking and arguing, also putting forward an economic model for communism.

[thefinalmarch]

LOL! So you are saying im Bisexual because of my genetics?
As well as as a result of environmental factors in the foetal stages, yes.


You do realize that after being asexual when i was younger i never knew about anything other than heterosexuality, its because of how the social environment plays out, that being anything but heterosexual is unnormal, you are expected to be heterosexual by some parents/some people so thats why you choose to be hetero. Please don't bullshit me with this "genetics" crap. It's society and peoples in them that effects you, thats why kids with only a mother/father or lesbian/gay parents more or likely becomes feminine/masculine.
I would absolutely love it if you substantiated your arguments with empirical evidence of any sort. These conclusions have been reached after nearly a century of psychological studies and experiments.


Genetics belong to Nazism. Not here.
There's a difference between acknowledging what traits are genetically determined, and eugenics. But if you're going to play that card then I'm going to mention how it is the position of religious organisations and right-wingers that homosexuality is a choice. The position of psychologists, psychiatrists and other scientific and medical experts, however, is that being homosexual, bisexual, etc. is not a choice.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

LOL! So you are saying im Bisexual because of my genetics? You do realize that after being asexual when i was younger i never knew about anything other than heterosexuality, its because of how the social environment plays out, that being anything but heterosexual is unnormal, you are expected to be heterosexual by some parents/some people so thats why you choose to be hetero. Please don't bullshit me with this "genetics" crap. It's society and peoples in them that effects you, thats why kids with only a mother/father or lesbian/gay parents more or likely becomes feminine/masculine. Genetics belong to Nazism. Not here.

Not sure if trolling or really this stupid. I'm curious, what do you think about evolution?

[unfriendly]

-Pretty much anything anyone has ever said about mental illness/neurodivergence.

-There are people in our society who don't perpetuate oppression in some way, and who aren't privileged at all.

-That nothing that happens on the internet matters.

[Nox]

People who underestimate Engels' contributions

Engels ftw!

[Landsharks eat metal]

People who underestimate Engels' contributions

Engels ftw!
That definitely pisses me off. I was kind of excited that one of my classes is going to be reading the Manifesto (even though it's probably just going to be all about why it's wrong), but then I saw that the professor only included Marx as the author and not Engels as well :mad:

[Nox]

And Dzhugashvili Please answer my posts instead of neg-repping, thank you.

I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but here goes...



So you believe that YOU ARE BORN WITH HOMOSEXUALITY? WTF??
It is something you choice to be, nothing genetic forces you to be it.


And the "Big Bang" dosen't fucking exist

The evidence actually points towards homosexuality being a result of hormones, not social environment.

However, I'm not denying the fact that there are people out there who were born heterosexual and have become homosexual later in life.

About the Big Bang, I personally doubt we will ever find out for sure how the Universe was created, so religious people will unfortunately always be able to have fun messing with our minds.

But based on the evidence we have at the moment, it shows that the Universe is expanding in all directions, so it must have come from a central point, that's where the Big Bang theory comes from. Yes it's just a theory, but it's backed by evidence.

[Zav]

For the sake of space, my top five are:

That vegans don't get enough protein/calcium/B12/etcetera.
That Anarchy is chaos.
That Communism is akin to Fascism.
That sexuality of any kind is a choice.
The book of Genesis.

[Yuppie Grinder]

That homosexuality is a choice (it is amazing how many dipshits still believe this is the case).
even if people made a concious decision to be queer, i don't see what would be wrong with that.

[EvilRedGuy]

You guys are full of shit, im not even going to bother to argue with you.

Keep believing everything is genetical. Freaks.

"Heyz Guyz, im biseuxel BECUASEO F MY GENES SIAD I WOULD CHOOSE BISEUXALITY OVER HETEROSEXUALITY LATER IN MY AGES" Everything IS PROGRAMMED BY THE GENES, LOL! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just stop, its getting stupid. FUCKING stupid. It is homophopbic the thing you are saying. It IS NOT evolution its personal preferences!

PS- Wish you could neg-rep all you fools all on the same time!

[thefinalmarch]

You guys are full of shit, im not even going to bother to argue with you.
Good, because you're not doing a very good job of it yourself.

Keep believing everything is genetical. Freaks.

"Heyz Guyz, im biseuxel BECUASEO F MY GENES SIAD I WOULD CHOOSE BISEUXALITY OVER HETEROSEXUALITY LATER IN MY AGES" Everything IS PROGRAMMED BY THE GENES, LOL! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
This was never stated.


Just stop, its getting stupid. FUCKING stupid. It is homophopbic the thing you are saying. It IS NOT evolution its personal preferences!
Wow... It's as if you didn't even read my post.

What's homophobic is saying that sexual orientation is a conscious decision. This is homophobic because it suggests homosexuality is something unnatural, and this just gives impetus to right-wingers, the religious, society at large etc. to repress homosexuals on moral or religious grounds.


PS- Wish you could neg-rep all you fools all on the same time!
You have 1 neg rep power. Come at me bro.

EDIT: Maybe you feel more at home at http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_choice

[thefinalmarch]

PS I'm still waiting on that empirical data.

[Dumb]

That the Nazis were socialists. :confused:/:lol:

[Misanthrope]

People who think race/nationality/sex/age/sexuality means anything.

It does though. Racism, nationalism, ageism and sexism all negatively affect society. It shouldn't be ignored.

[Zanthorus]

This is homophobic because it suggests homosexuality is something unnatural,

Well heterosexual sex while wearing a condom is fairly unnatural, as is posting on Revleft.

[∞]

I would say everything is natural.

[Kenco Smooth]

PS I'm still waiting on that empirical data.

Borrowed from another forum.

Firstly, genetics certainly plays a role, but it is not the whole story.
Let’s start with genetics anyway though.
I'm going to show two comparable and air tight twin studies showing the genetic basis in both males and females by a group of leading researchers in the field. There are more but I could post research papers all day and that would be boring.
Bailey and Pillard studied a group of male homosexuals who had twin brothers, and they found that 52% of the monozygotic twin brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twin brothers were homosexual.
Bailey JM, Pillard RC (1991). "A genetic study of male sexual orientation". Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 48 (12): 1089–96 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227)
Later they found the same story with females. The concordance rates for homosexuality were 48% for monozygotic twins and 16% for dizygotic twins.
Bailey JM, Pillard RC, Neale MC, Agyei Y. (1993 ). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217–223. (http://faculty.bennington.edu/%7Esherman/sex/female-twin-lesbian.pdf)

Clearly this does not account for everything as the research says. So the next thing we have to move on to is Early Hormones (which are also not a choice).
A consistent pattern of results has been observed in the research on sexuality and exposure to perinatal hormones (Ellis & Ames, 1987) (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/101/2/233.html) , which has (for obvious reasons) focused on non-human animals.
In rats, hamsters, ferrets, pigs, zebra finches, and doggie woggies, perinatal castration of males and testosterone treatment of females have been shown to induce same-sex preferences. (Adkins-Regan, 1988; (http://doi.apa.org/?uid=1989-21626-001) Baum et al., 1990; (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119380587/abstract) Hrabovzky & Hudson, 2002)
It would of course be a mistake to ignore the profound cognitive and emotional components in human sexuality which have no counterpart in laboratory animals. However it would also be a mistake to assume that an incredibly consistent pattern that runs through so many mammalian species has no relevance to humans. (Swaab, 2004) (http://www.informapharmascience.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231)
As for human research, there have been quasi-experimental studies conducted. (Ehrhardt, 1985) (http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/6/497)
We also have to look at the fraternal birth order effect, the finding that the probability of a man's being homosexual increases as a function of the number of older brothers that he has (Blanchard, 2004; (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022519304001924) Blanchard & Lippa, 2007) (http://www.springerlink.com/index/0417V7308624L342.pdf) . A recent study of blended families (families in which biologically related siblings were raised with adopted or step-siblings) found that the effect is related to the number of boys previously born to the mother, not the number of boys one is reared with (Bogaert, 2007) (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=fulltext.journal&jcode=neu&vol=21&issue=1&format=html&page=141&expand=1).
The effect is quite large: the probability of a male's being homosexual increases by 1/3 for every older brother that he has (Puts, Jordan, & Breedlove, 2006) (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/extract/103/28/10531), and an estimated 15% of homosexual men can attribute their homosexuality to this effect (Cantor et al., 2002) (http://profile.ultimate-guitar.com/Ur+all+%24h1t/blog/75725/URL=http://www.springerlink.com/index/7U2WC6MFDFMW60L8.pdf) . It is hypothesised that some mothers become progressively more immune to some masculinising hormone in male foetuses, and the mother's immune system might deactivate the masculinising hormone in younger brothers. This is known as the maternal immune hypothesis.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

However, I'm not denying the fact that there are people out there who were born heterosexual and have become homosexual later in life.


Please tell me how this isn't shit trolling buddy...while you are at it please tell me how such a statement can possible be true. :laugh:

By the way....why isn't "EvilRedGuy" restricted yet?

[Zanthorus]

I would say everything is natural.

Ok, whatever. My point was that whether or not an action is natural or unnatural has no bearing on whether or whether or not we should do it. I'm not convinced that the question of whether sexualities other than heterosexuality have any biological basis is in any way relevant to issues concerning the position of, and discrimination against members of the LGBT community within society at large. The only reason it gets any attention is because certain people feel the need to justify their aversion to homosexuality with false appeals to what is and isn't natural, the proper response to which is to point out the absurdity of limiting who people are allowed to fuck on the basis of biological hardwiring.

"Well, you're attractive and all, great personality, it's obvious we're both pretty good for each other, however after consulting with my geneticist I've determined that I'm not supposed to have sexual feelings for you, so I'm breaking it off."


Borrowed from another forum.

He was looking for EvilRedGuy to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that homosexuality has no biologial basis.

[Queercommie Girl]

We can completely remove racism/sexism/queerphobia from the world simply by pretending that race/sex/sexuality/gender identity don't exist in the world at all.

Similarly, we can completely remove classism/class oppression from the world simply by pretending that class doesn't exist in the world at all.

Humanity is one, Comrades!

[Kenco Smooth]

He was looking for EvilRedGuy to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that homosexuality has no biologial basis.

Well that teaches me to post whilst browsing half interestedly...

[L.A.P.]

-That any obscure third-world state like Bangladesh is communist.

-That Indian people are Arab. "I'm half-Italian and half-Indian." "So do you speak Arabic?" "Why the fuck would I speak Arabic?" (besides it being a really cool language to learn)

-"So what do you have against democracy?" "What?" "You're a communist, right?" *facepalm*

-people equating autism with mental retardation

-most of what is said in my history class.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That just because you might defend something against the most outrageously incorrect statements it means you support it. EX:

"Obama is a Muslim".
"No he's not, don't be stupid".
"I thought you said you don't support Obama". *facepalm*

"Stalin killed 100 million people".
"Wtf, no he didn't".
"I thought you dislike Stalin". *facepalm*

[Comrade Gwydion]

"The baker around the corner should not have to pay for the university education of a lawyer's son."
(on abolishing study grants)


This one is actually quite easily:
"Actually, the lawyer is helping to pay for the education of the baker's son. The lawyer would've been able to pay for his own kid."

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That pseudoscience is real science.

[Nox]

It does though. Racism, nationalism, ageism and sexism all negatively affect society. It shouldn't be ignored.

Exactly, ageists, sexists, racists, nationalists all think that age, sex, race or nationality actually mean something important :)

[Nox]

You guys are full of shit, im not even going to bother to argue with you.

Keep believing everything is genetical. Freaks.

"Heyz Guyz, im biseuxel BECUASEO F MY GENES SIAD I WOULD CHOOSE BISEUXALITY OVER HETEROSEXUALITY LATER IN MY AGES" Everything IS PROGRAMMED BY THE GENES, LOL! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just stop, its getting stupid. FUCKING stupid. It is homophopbic the thing you are saying. It IS NOT evolution its personal preferences!

PS- Wish you could neg-rep all you fools all on the same time!

I'm sure many people would like to know the answer to this:

Are you homosexual?

[Misanthrope]

Exactly, ageists, sexists, racists, nationalists all think that age, sex, race or nationality actually mean something important :)

You're missing the point. All those things do mean something important on a large scale. I get what you're saying, don't judge people based off of age, sex, race and nationality. All I'm saying is that when it comes to real life, your race, age, sex and nationality do give you a leg up or down, which is wrong.

We just had a misunderstanding.

[Invader Zim]

That Stalin was a leftist.

[Dumb]

This is homophobic because it suggests homosexuality is something unnatural, and this just gives impetus to right-wingers, the religious, society at large etc. to repress homosexuals on moral or religious grounds.

I don't see why it even matters if sexual orientation is "natural" or not. What pisses me off is the fact that anybody even gives a damn about the genitalia of the people I (wish I could) sleep with.

[Lobotomy]

I dislike it when elderly people are overly nostalgic about "the old days" to the point of glorifying things and glossing over negative aspects of that time. For example, if they say "Everyone was so much nicer to each other in the 50s!"... uh, maybe, as long as you were white, middle class, Christian and showed NO signs of agreeing with any leftist ideas, yeah.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

When people confuse being a dick with being honest.

[xub3rn00dlex]

EvilRedGuy, I suppose you choose what color eyes you have yeah? I suppose you choose to have a predisposition for certain diseases in your life? I suppose you choose to have freckles or birth marks?

Here's a recommendation: I suggest you choose to read a book about genetics, and then re-read it. Go and read about the research and studies done by the world's geneticists and then come back and tell us we choose to be attracted to females, males, or both. Then, cite me a widely respected geneticist who has evidence to back up your claim.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

EvilRedGuy, I suppose you choose what color eyes you have yeah? I suppose you choose to have a predisposition for certain diseases in your life? I suppose you choose to have freckles or birth marks?

Here's a recommendation: I suggest you choose to read a book about genetics, and then re-read it. Go and read about the research and studies done by the world's geneticists and then come back and tell us we choose to be attracted to females, males, or both. Then, cite me a widely respected geneticist who has evidence to back up your claim.
What book, Mein Kampf? Genetics is for Nazis!

You can't make up stupid like that.

[ComradeGrant]

When people assume that I believe what I believe because I'm a "high schooler in ripped jeans who's just pissed that pot is illegal."

When people assume that I'm an Anarchist because I like some punk bands.

Someone actually said to me once that "Anarchism didn't exist 50 years ago, it was a 70's punk thing."

That because ML parties were/are at the head of failed states they are the only true way towards communism.

That communists are dogmatic.

[Pretty Flaco]

When people confuse being a dick with being honest.

You west coast people just need to be more blunt. ;)

also with the nature vs. nurture thing, he's saying that homosexuality isn't completely determined by your genes. I think like that when it comes to intelligence. I HATE when people try to say that intelligence is entirely genetic. Although I know that IQ is connected to your genes, environment has an enormous affect on performance in school/education.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You west coast people just need to be more blunt. ;)

also with the nature vs. nurture thing, he's saying that homosexuality isn't completely determined by your genes. I think like that when it comes to intelligence. I HATE when people try to say that intelligence is entirely genetic. Although I know that IQ is connected to your genes, environment has an enormous affect on performance in school/education.
Lol that's the last thing we need.

[Manic Impressive]

That people think that the soviet union was anything but a state capitalist nation.

[Mythbuster]

That I believe I was once a monkey;
Homosexuality is a choice;
Hitler was an atheist, therefore atheists support SHITler;
Hitler was a communist; and
Socialism=Dictatorship.

Must I go oN!

[xub3rn00dlex]

That I believe I was once a monkey;
Homosexuality is a choice;
Hitler was an atheist, therefore atheists support SHITler;
Hitler was a communist; and
Socialism=Dictatorship.

Must I go oN!

Yes, you must! Onwards!

- People who automatically assume anyone who is any kind of muscular is on steroids.

- That steroids are cheating.

- That communism is a "stage" the youth goes through, and that once they get a job they will grow out of it. ( I'm 20, paying for my own education, and work construction. This fucking defies their own logic since I've become more leftist since starting work. )

[La Comédie Noire]

That everything in Medicine and psychology is a scam to make money or control the population. I mean don't get me wrong, there are scams in the medical community, but interestingly enough a lot of them are perpetrated by people who claim to be going against the system.

Leftists ideas are on the margin of society with a lot of other things that are just crap and sometimes people end up giving sympathy or even support to things that are down right wrong because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I mean a folk remedy for asthma is great if it is mild (I use mint for such light attacks) but if you have a serious asthma attack Albuterol is needed.

[Devrim]

What's homophobic is saying that sexual orientation is a conscious decision. This is homophobic because it suggests homosexuality is something unnatural, and this just gives impetus to right-wingers, the religious, society at large etc. to repress homosexuals on moral or religious grounds.

There is nothing homophobic about believing that homosexuality is a conscious decision. It might be scientifically wrong, and it might be used to justify homophobia, but in itself, it is not homophobic.

Devrim

[A Revolutionary Tool]

That just because I'm young(18) it means I'm not as smart as any other adult. I get into arguments all the time with my uncle who at the end always says either "Gtfo of this country if you hate it" or "Yeah talk to me about this when you're my age". Fuck you man, when I'm your age I'm not going to be a fucking bigot towards Muslims and gay people!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There is nothing homophobic about believing that homosexuality is a conscious decision. It might be scientifically wrong, and it might be used to justify homophobia, but in itself, it is not homophobic.

Devrim

I'm gay and I find such garbage views to be very homophobic.

[black magick hustla]

I'm gay and I find such garbage views to be very homophobic.
you see, this is the same bullshit i was saying. this whole "i am *insert minority" therefore i am right". my friend is gay and also a communist and he says the point was never between whether it is a choice or not, and that it should not matter, and that he feels he "chose" it. its not an homophobic view, and certainly its not "homophobic" because a gay person says so.

[black magick hustla]

condoms are racist against mexicans btw

[thefinalmarch]

Well heterosexual sex while wearing a condom is fairly unnatural, as is posting on Revleft.
Incidentally the church is also opposed to both of these things :)

[thefinalmarch]

There is nothing homophobic about believing that homosexuality is a conscious decision. It might be scientifically wrong, and it might be used to justify homophobia, but in itself, it is not homophobic.

Devrim
It's an argument used by many homophobes to justify their homophobia. In the prevailing wider social context, it is homophobic. It's not homophobic in itself. I just phrased it poorly, really. It was more of a "this argument is most commonly used by homophobes, so you (evilred) should be aware of that" thing than anything alse.

[thefinalmarch]

By the way....why isn't "EvilRedGuy" restricted yet?
Why should he be?

EvilRedGuy isn't homophobic (I think the user in question is even bisexual?). What he's said isn't homophobic in itself at all, but homophobes do put forward similar arguments, although they do this from entirely different perspectives and for entirely different reasons.

[Devrim]

I'm gay and I find such garbage views to be very homophobic.

As has been already stated you being gay or not has nothing to do with it.


It's an argument used by many homophobes to justify their homophobia. In the prevailing wider social context, it is homophobic. It's not homophobic in itself. I just phrased it poorly, really. It was more of a "this argument is most commonly used by homophobes, so you (evilred) should be aware of that" thing than anything alse.

This is more reasonable, but the point is that it is homophobic "in the prevailing wider social context". Social context is different in different places. We are both agreed that it is not homophobic in itself.

In the country I live in their is virtually no discussion of gay issues though incidentally it was one of the earliest countries in the world to legalise homosexuality (in 1858). When it does occasionally come up the homophobic argument is that being gay is a 'psychosexual illness', which is pretty homophobic in itself.

Within this social context, I don't think that the idea that homosexuality is a choice carries any homophobic implications. The argument used by homophobes here is that it is an illness not a choice.

Devrim

[EvilRedGuy]

^^Exactly(both two post above me), i am Bisexual and that was an entire choice once i felt it would be more interesting to try both genders since it became apparent to me that i was attracted to both. This is why i think its weired that you guys are acting homophobic to people like me by saying such thing isn't truth/possible. While i understand why you would be defending this position that genetics might be an effect and that it is not entirely a choice, i think genetics do not necessarily play a role in what sexual orientation you choose, me and alot of other homosexuals/bisexuals i know did start by being heterosexual at first, it isn't really specific when they choose to be and it was a personal choice. That isn't to say conservatards/rightards and religion morons have to say (on their crappy site) that you have to avoid just a choice (ITS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL) and justifying it by saying "X Person is more likely to be assaulted(which should be combated SO IT DOSEN'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, IDIOTS)" So yeah don't attack me by saying it isn't possible, just because you too are gay dosen't mean you have any special words that other can't argue with, though you probably have more experience in it. As for the emperical evidence, well my point was that Hitler used genetics as a saying to why a race was more superior and im really against such genetical bullshit. What eyecolour you have, ethnicity, etc sure... But something like believe/personal preferences is something i think mostly act as a result to the social environment you live in, that dosen't mean it couldn't also be genetical. Please don't put words into my mouth, kkthxbai. I'm not attacking anyone, so maybe.. Instead of attacking me, try to educate me. And please... do never call me a homophobe. I did write this in a hurry so sorry if it came out wrong. Got to go. :D

[Nox]

You're missing the point. All those things do mean something important on a large scale. I get what you're saying, don't judge people based off of age, sex, race and nationality. All I'm saying is that when it comes to real life, your race, age, sex and nationality do give you a leg up or down, which is wrong.

We just had a misunderstanding.

What I meant to say was that they shouldn't mean anything :)

[Nox]

^^Exactly(both two post above me), i am Bisexual and that was an entire choice once i felt it would be more interesting to try both genders since it became apparent to me that i was attracted to both. This is why i think its weired that you guys are acting homophobic to people like me by saying such thing isn't truth/possible. While i understand why you would be defending this position that genetics might be an effect and that it is not entirely a choice, i think genetics do not necessarily play a role in what sexual orientation you choose, me and alot of other homosexuals/bisexuals i know did start by being heterosexual at first, it isn't really specific when they choose to be and it was a personal choice. That isn't to say conservatards/rightards and religion morons have to say (on their crappy site) that you have to avoid just a choice (ITS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL) and justifying it by saying "X Person is more likely to be assaulted(which should be combated SO IT DOSEN'T HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, IDIOTS)" So yeah don't attack me by saying it isn't possible, just because you too are gay dosen't mean you have any special words that other can't argue with, though you probably have more experience in it. As for the emperical evidence, well my point was that Hitler used genetics as a saying to why a race was more superior and im really against such genetical bullshit. What eyecolour you have, ethnicity, etc sure... But something like believe/personal preferences is something i think mostly act as a result to the social environment you live in, that dosen't mean it couldn't also be genetical. Please don't put words into my mouth, kkthxbai. I'm not attacking anyone, so maybe.. Instead of attacking me, try to educate me. And please... do never call me a homophobe. I did write this in a hurry so sorry if it came out wrong. Got to go. :D

There are people out there who are homosexual by choice.

There are also people out there who are homosexual by genetics.

It's pretty blunt to say that because you became homosexual by choice that there aren't any people out there who are homosexual by genetics.

[Lobotomy]

Wait. If homosexuality was determined by genetics, wouldn't that gene be nearly nonexistent by now since homosexuals often don't reproduce?..

(I'm not necessarily implying that homosexuality is a choice either)

[Queercommie Girl]

Wait. If homosexuality was determined by genetics, wouldn't that gene be nearly nonexistent by now since homosexuals often don't reproduce?..

(I'm not necessarily implying that homosexuality is a choice either)

It's not "black-and-white" and "either-or", it's dialectical. Sexuality is determined by a mixture of genetic and socio-economic/environmental factors. But one thing is for certain: Homosexuality is certainly not determined by some kind of "gay gene" in a simplistic sense.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It's not "black-and-white" and "either-or", it's dialectical. Sexuality is determined by a mixture of genetic and socio-economic/environmental factors. But one thing is for certain: Homosexuality is certainly not determined by some kind of "gay gene" in a simplistic sense.

How so?

[Nox]

How so?

I think what she means is that there are many people out there who feel they were born gay, have never had any attraction to women etc. And there's also people who made the decision to become gay.

I see that as a fair thing to say, because as we've seen just in this thread, there are people who were born gay and people who chose to be gay. Either way, there's nothing wrong with it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think what she means is that there are many people out there who feel they were born gay, have never had any attraction to women etc. And there's also people who made the decision to become gay.

I see that as a fair thing to say, because as we've seen just in this thread, there are people who were born gay and people who chose to be gay. Either way, there's nothing wrong with it.

*sigh* ...it is embarrassing that this is the state of the left where there are people who sympathize with the beliefs of the Tea Party and believe that a person can "become" and "choose" to be gay.

Ask yourself this: Did you choose to be straight? When did you choose? What are these so called "environmental factors"? If you can choose to become gay than why not temporarily "go gay" for a day or so just to feel like a homosexual? What? You find that you can't?! *gasp*

At this point it is just plain sad.

[Desperado]

I think what she means is that there are many people out there who feel they were born gay, have never had any attraction to women etc. And there's also people who made the decision to become gay.

Do you "choose" who you're attracted to? Do you deliberate, and then after much deep reasoning decide? Love is an expression of our want, but whether we choose what we want is just a pointless semantic entanglement, the conclusions yielding little differences in practice.

The point we should be angry at is that reactionaries use "choice" as a way to make homosexuality a sin and blame the person, or likewise when reactionaries use the "no choice" to make homosexuality a disease which is in opposition to the persons will, and so attempt to "correct" the person.

The fact that Dzhugashvili or whoever has a different philosophical nuance in the way they view the whole choice business doesn't really matter seeing as they have the same conclusions as everyone here (that homosexuality is not wrong nor bad).

[Nox]

To answer both of you, I am basing my claim that some people choose to be gay on the fact that 2 people in this thread have said that that's the case for them.

I'm not denying or disputing that you were born gay, as far as I'm aware being born gay is based on hormones which isn't something you can't change.

[EvilRedGuy]

To answer both of you, I am basing my claim that some people choose to be gay on the fact that 2 people in this thread have said that that's the case for them.

I'm not denying or disputing that you were born gay, as far as I'm aware being born gay is based on hormones which isn't something you can't change.


Exactly, i can't see why everyone get so upset by it. What? Are people not allowed to choose to be straight/homosexual/bisexual? :rolleyes:

Hormones, social environment, and decision is what chooses the direction. It is definitely both not a choice and a choice, depending on the individual/situation.

[Luc]

I hate the misconception that masturbation is for lonely males.

Fuck you, I have a high sex drive!:cursing:

[Quail]

-The misconception that if a man can't get a girlfriend, it's because he's too much of a "nice guy."
-Anarchy is chaos.
-Anarchists are no longer anarchists if they organise.
-We need the bourgeoisie to provide jobs for the workers.
-Anarchism and communism are contradictory.
-Bisexual woman are more likely to cheat.
-Women in clubs like having creepy, sweaty men grind up against them.

[Landsharks eat metal]

If you are gay, you're attracted to every single person of the same sex :mad:

[Smyg]

^Indeed. While I'm personally not homosexual - I pretty much got a single-target sexuality going on :rolleyes: - it really bothers me that every single guy seems to think that gay people will immediately lust for them.

[xub3rn00dlex]

^Indeed. While I'm personally not homosexual - I pretty much got a single-target sexuality going on :rolleyes: - it really bothers me that every single guy seems to think that gay people will immediately lust for them.

I think this is a pretty big issue in the debate of legalizing homosexuality ( especially male homosexuality. ) What I mean is that a lot of the homophobic people I have met ( I'm not in any way saying they are all like this ) have this irrational fear that by legalizing homosexual marriage and granting them equal rights, it somehow gives them the opportunity to break into heterosexual men's homes and sexually assault them. It is fucking infuriating having these discussions with people who actually believe this, because it blows my mind as to how high peoples' egos seem to climb and obscure their logical thought process.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

To answer both of you, I am basing my claim that some people choose to be gay on the fact that 2 people in this thread have said that that's the case for them.


Those people are deluded, lying fucks.They didn't choose to be gay; they were born that way and throughout the course of their lives they were made to feel ashamed of themselves so they denied their sexuality. However, later in life, AKA recently, they found reason to no longer be ashamed and can openly admit that they are gay.

To the dipshits on this thread that claim that they chose to be gay: How did you do it? How did you go from "boning" women to being sexually attracted to men? You sure you're not Bisexual?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Nox]

Those people are deluded, lying fucks.


Tell it to them not me.

Who are you to deny that someone is homosexual simply because they made the choice later in life rather than being born homosexual?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Tell it to them not me.

Who are you to deny that someone is homosexual simply because they made the choice later in life rather than being born homosexual?

I intend to to.

Who am I? No one, but I can tell you this: YOU CANNOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY! It IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS EITHER FULL OF SHIT OR IS MISGUIDED ABOUT THEMSELVES!

You cannot pick and choose sexualities, it does not work like that.You can have repressed feelings, you can deny yourself and later discover yourself, but you cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever go from being "heterosexual" to "homosexual." The environment around you cannot influence you, it is not how you were raised, it is the way you were born! If you can than prove it to me right now: go and force yourself to have a sexual attraction to guys and offer proof that anyone can do the same.

If you find that you cannot, than it only proves what me, and every other unashamed,clear thinking, gay guy, already knows.

[Nox]

YOU CANNOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY! It IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS EITHER FULL OF SHIT OR IS MISGUIDED ABOUT THEMSELVES!



Tell that to Queer commiegirl and EvilRedGuy...

[Dumb]

"Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are all social constructs anyway, just tidy little boxes to organize a messy, intricate human sexuality. Me, for example - I find both men and women physically attractive, but can't connect emotionally with men the way I can with women (and for me, sexuality is all about emotional connection). Does that make me bi? Does that make me a hetero? It's a tough call, so it's up to society or myself to, er...decide.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Tell that to Queer commiegirl and EvilRedGuy...

I am sure they already know.:p

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are all social constructs anyway, just tidy little boxes to organize a messy, intricate human sexuality. Me, for example - I find both men and women physically attractive, but can't connect emotionally with men the way I can with women (and for me, sexuality is all about emotional connection). Does that make me bi? Does that make me a hetero? It's a tough call, so it's up to society or myself to, er...decide.

That makes you Bisexual.

Emotional connection don't have anything to do with physical attraction.

[Seth]

That there are isolated little boxes labeled "heterosexual", "homosexual", and "bisexual" instead of a spectrum of attraction.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

That there are isolated little boxes labeled "heterosexual", "homosexual", and "bisexual" instead of a spectrum of attraction.

There is a spectrum...but it is labeled because bourgeois society needs to categorize everything.

[EvilRedGuy]

I intend to to.

Who am I? No one, but I can tell you this: YOU CANNOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY! It IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS EITHER FULL OF SHIT OR IS MISGUIDED ABOUT THEMSELVES!

You cannot pick and choose sexualities, it does not work like that.You can have repressed feelings, you can deny yourself and later discover yourself, but you cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever go from being "heterosexual" to "homosexual." The environment around you cannot influence you, it is not how you were raised, it is the way you were born! If you can than prove it to me right now: go and force yourself to have a sexual attraction to guys and offer proof that anyone can do the same.

If you find that you cannot, than it only proves what me, and every other unashamed,clear thinking, gay guy, already knows.


Did you have any specific problems when you got raised up as a child?

Huh tough guy?

Seriously. Just shut up, i hate when people make accusation without accepting people of what they are. There is no specific things when it comes to being attracted/sexual as has already been said. I think you should get restricted for supporting bourgeois dividing of the working class. You're pathetic just like that AttackGr kid. Mindless nationalism (tell me whats 'queer' nationalism? first of all "queer" dosen't specify whether you are a gay or not queers don't have to be gay, and second of all why do you call yourself a nationalist? WE ARE REVLEFT, WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THEM) I think this is one of you're reactionary view that you have.

And [email protected] who puts the word on other, typical Stalinist-moron.

:confused::thumbdown::confused:PATHETIC. Seriously we are supposed to be progressive, "Label"-nazi crap there is no exact spectrum FOR ANYTHING, music, politics, seuxality, ethnicity, etc, No such thing can be labeled, its reactionary to label things, especially PEOPLE.

[Smyg]

Oh shut up. All of you. Really. If you can't have a moderately civil discussion then don't have one at all.

[Lobotomy]

I think this is a pretty big issue in the debate of legalizing homosexuality ( especially male homosexuality. ) What I mean is that a lot of the homophobic people I have met ( I'm not in any way saying they are all like this ) have this irrational fear that by legalizing homosexual marriage and granting them equal rights, it somehow gives them the opportunity to break into heterosexual men's homes and sexually assault them. It is fucking infuriating having these discussions with people who actually believe this, because it blows my mind as to how high peoples' egos seem to climb and obscure their logical thought process.

Or if drugs were legalized we'd instantly all quit our jobs and start smoking meth all day.

When people think like that, I think it really says something about them. It says they need an authority to tell them they can't do certain things, and if they don't have that authority in their lives they'll just go nuts and have no self control.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Did you have any specific problems when you got raised up as a child?

Huh tough guy?

Seriously. Just shut up, i hate when people make accusation without accepting people of what they are. There is no specific things when it comes to being attracted/sexual as has already been said. I think you should get restricted for supporting bourgeois dividing of the working class. You're pathetic just like that AttackGr kid. Mindless nationalism (tell me whats 'queer' nationalism? first of all "queer" dosen't specify whether you are a gay or not queers don't have to be gay, and second of all why do you call yourself a nationalist? WE ARE REVLEFT, WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THEM) I think this is one of you're reactionary view that you have.

And [email protected] who puts the word on other, typical Stalinist-moron.

:confused::thumbdown::confused:PATHETIC. Seriously we are supposed to be progressive, "Label"-nazi crap there is no exact spectrum FOR ANYTHING, music, politics, seuxality, ethnicity, etc, No such thing can be labeled, its reactionary to label things, especially PEOPLE.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.Can't prove your asinine beliefs? Than it only means it is bullshit.As previously mentioned there is plenty of evidence which points towards genetic reasoning;so,one side has proof that what they KNOW while your side has semi-superstitious claims which comes from non-gay sources.

As I have said many time before: put up or shut up.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Oh shut up. All of you. Really. If you can't have a moderately civil discussion then don't have one at all.

I know right? Of course, in my defense, it is hard to not become irritable when dumbassery hatemongers get involved (EvilRedGuy).

[Seth]

Did you have any specific problems when you got raised up as a child?

Huh tough guy?

Seriously. Just shut up, i hate when people make accusation without accepting people of what they are. There is no specific things when it comes to being attracted/sexual as has already been said. I think you should get restricted for supporting bourgeois dividing of the working class. You're pathetic just like that AttackGr kid. Mindless nationalism (tell me whats 'queer' nationalism? first of all "queer" dosen't specify whether you are a gay or not queers don't have to be gay, and second of all why do you call yourself a nationalist? WE ARE REVLEFT, WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THEM) I think this is one of you're reactionary view that you have.

And [email protected] who puts the word on other, typical Stalinist-moron.

:confused::thumbdown::confused:PATHETIC. Seriously we are supposed to be progressive, "Label"-nazi crap there is no exact spectrum FOR ANYTHING, music, politics, seuxality, ethnicity, etc, No such thing can be labeled, its reactionary to label things, especially PEOPLE.

Right on brother you tell 'em. :thumbup1:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Right on brother you tell 'em. :thumbup1:

This isn't helping your case Seth, not after your debacle in the 'National Socialist' thread.

[Nox]

why do you call yourself a nationalist?

I'm pretty sure it's sarcastic, most people here have sarcastic user titles, including myself.



[email protected] who puts the word on other, typical Stalinist-moron.


Firstly, it's Dzhugashvili.
Secondly, it's Marxist-Leninist-moron.
Thirdly, wtf are you talking about?

[Nox]

TheGodlessUtopian, don't you think it's a little silly to say that every single gay in the world was born that way?

I know that genetics is what determines being born homosexual, but there are also a minority of gays who made the transition later in life, for a variety of reasons.

It's very blunt and judgemental to say that it's impossible to be homosexual if you weren't born that way.

You were born homosexual so you became gay because of your genetics, but there are other reasons why people become gay too.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

TheGodlessUtopian, don't you think it's a little silly to say that every single gay in the world was born that way?

I know that genetics is what determines being born homosexual, but there are also a minority of gays who made the transition later in life, for a variety of reasons.

It's very blunt and judgemental to say that it's impossible to be homosexual if you weren't born that way.

You were born homosexual so you became gay because of your genetics, but there are other reasons why people become gay too.

No.it is perfectly reasonable because it is the goddamn truth!

The only people here which argue otherwise are a Transsexual (QueerCommieGirl) and an individual who might be Bisexual (EvilRedGuy?).Now,in case you didn't notice neither of these individuals are gay and both offer no evidence whatsoever to support their views (I swear to god I am waiting for one of them to bring up something from the Anti-gay hate groups,that would make my day).They simply expouse their belifs on the same level that the Tea Party does (i,e I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I HAVE SAID SO!).

And no,there are no other ways to "become" gay.If there are than please,by all means,tell me know.I just hope these supposed ideas aren't based on Marx's "Materialism" or pseudoscience.

Will PM you a link.

[∞]

That cannabis is a gateway drug.

[Queercommie Girl]

How so?

I don't believe there is absolutely no biological/genetic basis for homosexuality and transgenderism at all. I think there is some biological factor behind LGBT.

However, in the political sense, this doesn't actually matter. LGBT people should have equal rights, whether we are born this way or we simply choose to be this way. It doesn't affect the political argument at all.

Also, I'm sympathetic to technocratic ideas, even though I don't self-identify as a technocrat. So even a "genetic basis" is not absolutely immutable.

[Rusty Shackleford]

That cannabis is a gateway drug.
led me to ax murder my family.








http://data.whicdn.com/images/11645951/forever-alone-guy-painting_large.jpg

[Dumb]

That makes you Bisexual.

Emotional connection don't have anything to do with physical attraction.

The term "bisexual" covers way too much ground to be of any use. It's almost like that "one drop of blood" rule for establishing "whiteness": if your sexual attraction and interest are both purely 100% towards the opposite gender (itself a social construct), you're a heterosexual, but anything else is queer. For practical purposes, my sex life always has and always will look just like that of a heterosexual male, for better or worse (unless a female partner decides to undergo GRS - which, hey, no problem for me!), so I choose the term "hetero" to avoid confusion.

Actually, I take that all back. Thom McCabe was the one guy that got away... :tt2:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The term "bisexual" covers way too much ground to be of any use. It's almost like that "one drop of blood" rule for establishing "whiteness": if your sexual attraction and interest are both purely 100% towards the opposite gender (itself a social construct), you're a heterosexual, but anything else is queer. For practical purposes, my sex life always has and always will look just like that of a heterosexual male, for better or worse (unless a female partner decides to undergo GRS - which, hey, no problem for me!), so I choose the term "hetero" to avoid confusion.

Actually, I take that all back. Thom McCabe was the one guy that got away... :tt2:

Bisexual means you have an attraction to both males and females...that is it, if you only are attracted to females (and you are a males) than you are heterosexual.

[Dumb]

Bisexual means you have an attraction to both males and females...that is it, if you only are attracted to females (and you are a males) than you are heterosexual.

And that in itself implies certain assumptions regarding sexuality (i.e. the supremacy of the physical component). What about the emotional component? I'm not saying that the emotional component is necessary for there to be attraction, but it's necessary for me to have any interest in doing anything about said attraction.

The male form can attract me, but a relationship with a male holds no interest for me.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

And that in itself implies certain assumptions regarding sexuality (i.e. the supremacy of the physical component). What about the emotional component? I'm not saying that the emotional component is necessary for there to be attraction, but it's necessary for me to have any interest in doing anything about said attraction.

The male form can attract me, but a relationship with a male holds no interest for me.

Well, physical attraction is all concerned with the physical body.Anything to do with emotions is called an emotional attraction and is regarded in a separate category.

I would say that there is a difference in Physical and emotional relationships.

[Seth]

This isn't helping your case Seth, not after your debacle in the 'National Socialist' thread.

Lol

what am I being tried for?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lol

what am I being tried for?

You are not being "tried" for anything but you are constantly being evaluated by the other members and by supporting another member's unusual beliefs (EvilRedGuy) you are making yourself look quite bad.Wouldn't be as bad if you didn't think Socialism and National socialism are the same thing but as it stands I just think it would be best if you watched what you said since once you cross that line and say something which many people take offense to, everything will be leveled against you.

[RedZezz]

Nazis = Marxism = Fascism = Socialism

Social Democracy = socialism = marxism

The ten demands in The Communist Manifesto are "planks of communism" and a blueprint for a socialist society.

Progressive taxation = Communist

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The ten demands in The Communist Manifesto are "planks of communism" and a blueprint for a socialist society.


That's the worst, it pisses me off so bad :cursing:

[xub3rn00dlex]

Nazis = Marxism = Fascism = Socialism

Social Democracy = socialism = marxism

The ten demands in The Communist Manifesto are "planks of communism" and a blueprint for a socialist society.

Progressive taxation = Communist

There are 10 commandments of communism?! :scared:


Or if drugs were legalized we'd instantly all quit our jobs and start smoking meth all day.

When people think like that, I think it really says something about them. It says they need an authority to tell them they can't do certain things, and if they don't have that authority in their lives they'll just go nuts and have no self control.

Speak for yourself, I'm quitting and doing nothing but lethal amounts of heroin. :D

But seriously, this argument is bullshit. People do drugs today regardless of their legality, and for the most part they still manage to function in some magical way. I've actually been high a few times at work, mostly after smoking weed but also after about two hours working with rubber cement. I know this isn't speaking for everybody, but I actually saw an improved efficiency while high. My ability to concentrate increased, so I actually managed to pull off three days worth of work ( gluing cement finished cork panels onto walls ) in a little under 7 hours. :cool:

P.S: I just found out we have more smileys than the 15 on display! :laugh:

[Dumb]

Well, physical attraction is all concerned with the physical body.Anything to do with emotions is called an emotional attraction and is regarded in a separate category.

I would say that there is a difference in Physical and emotional relationships.

The emotional is built up of chemical reactions in the body, mostly (but not exclusively) the brain.

As for physical vs emotional relationships...for me, if there is no emotional, there is no relationship. It's that simple. I've known men and women whom I've considered physically attractive, but with whom I could not build any sort of emotional connection, and so I had zero interest in being or doing anything with them. It's just so happened that I've met women with whom I could develop an emotional connection; I've yet to experience that with a man.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The emotional is built up of chemical reactions in the body, mostly (but not exclusively) the brain.

As for physical vs emotional relationships...for me, if there is no emotional, there is no relationship. It's that simple. I've known men and women whom I've considered physically attractive, but with whom I could not build any sort of emotional connection, and so I had zero interest in being or doing anything with them. It's just so happened that I've met women with whom I could develop an emotional connection; I've yet to experience that with a man.

I think your experiences are normal enough.I would consider the emotional aspect important,as with any relationship,but can't say I have ever had an emotional attraction so strong that it turned into a physical attraction.I think the two have an overlap in that it is not exclusively one or the other.

I mostly have emotional connections with men, women mostly elude me in the emotional sense (I have much better friendships with men).

[Dumb]

That's the funny thing...physical attraction might or might not turn emotional, but emotional has always - always - turned physical for me if it's not shot down at the start. I'm just a big ol' ball of feelings, apparently.

[EvilRedGuy]

Okay i will stop bothering to post in this thread.
But so-self-proclaimed 'Queer Nationalist' i have one last thing to tell you.

WHY CAN'T I CHOOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL IF I WANT TO?
ITS NOTHING YOU CHOOSE SO LEAVE ME/US ALONE.

Not hatin' you just saying. :cool:

[EvilRedGuy]

That's the funny thing...physical attraction might or might not turn emotional, but emotional has always - always - turned physical for me if it's not shot down at the start. I'm just a big ol' ball of feelings, apparently.


Exactly, Good point. And you are right that sexuality isn't a specific thing/label, sexuality has a spectrum of different attractions/feelings/emotions/likings/etc,

LABELS = FUCK OFF. Let people, music, political belief, everything BE FREE!!!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

WHY CAN'T I CHOOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL IF I WANT TO?
ITS NOTHING YOU CHOOSE SO LEAVE ME/US ALONE.


Because it is impossible and you would know as such if you were actually gay.If you are Bisexual than I fully believe that your duel attractions are mudding up the proper view on orientations.

Tell us, have you "chosen" to be gay? If so than please tell us in detail how you came about this decision and how you made it work. :laugh:

As far as emotional and physical attraction goes...I know some people here believe that emotional attraction equals love while physical attrtaction equals sexual arousal.I will say that sexual orientations involve both of these and it is not exclusively one way or the other.One cannot find love simply due to a high degree of emotional attraction because there needs to be a psychical component as well; otherwise there is nothing to bring you towards sexual atactivity and commitment.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think your experiences are normal enough.I would consider the emotional aspect important,as with any relationship,but can't say I have ever had an emotional attraction so strong that it turned into a physical attraction.I think the two have an overlap in that it is not exclusively one or the other.

I mostly have emotional connections with men, women mostly elude me in the emotional sense (I have much better friendships with men).


I respect your personal experience, but your personal experience is not the last word in human sexuality. There are more than 6 billion people on the planet. To think all of these people experience sexuality along similar lines is mind-boggling.

I find the obsession with trying to determine whether sexuality is social or biological to be largely irrelevant to real LGBT politics. In real politics it's all about concrete campaigning and bringing onboard all the allies we could get, within certain limits. A more "liberal" definition of homosexuality and bisexuality would create more allies for our movement. It's not about finding "truth" in the purely abstract sense.

Out of interest, what do you think about transgenderism, is it purely biological or not, in your view?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I respect your personal experience, but your personal experience is not the last word in human sexuality. There are more than 6 billion people on the planet. To think all of these people experience sexuality along similar lines is mind-boggling.

I find the obsession with trying to determine whether sexuality is social or biological to be largely irrelevant to real LGBT politics. In real politics it's all about concrete campaigning and bringing onboard all the allies we could get, within certain limits. A more "liberal" definition of homosexuality and bisexuality would create more allies for our movement. It's not about finding "truth" in the purely abstract sense.

Out of interest, what do you think about transgenderism, is it purely biological or not, in your view?

As mind boggling as it seems I would still maintain that one cannot change their sexuality despite the massive numbers on the planet.Numbers mean nothing,what would you think that simply because there are many human "copies" that the base biology foundation would differ?

As in regards to Trasngenderism I would say that it is biological has it has its roots in the brain.The need to change genders is due from a brain which developed as a female/male yet has the opposite sexual organs (this is what science tells us).While the decisions to undergo sex change operations is strictly voluntary the biological/mental component is not voluntary.

[Meridian]

- When people think if somethings a theory there is not an ounce of truth in it.

A more subtle one that annoy me: When people think that if someone does not accept a theory, they do not accept the data which is used to support it.

This reminds me of when the wannabe-scientist-atheist crew starts talking about how even gravity is a theory along with evolution. The point they think they are making is that if one questions the theory of gravity, one must for some reason also question whether one falls from a cliff.

[Queercommie Girl]

As mind boggling as it seems I would still maintain that one cannot change their sexuality despite the massive numbers on the planet.Numbers mean nothing,what would you think that simply because there are many human "copies" that the base biology foundation would differ?

As in regards to Trasngenderism I would say that it is biological has it has its roots in the brain.The need to change genders is due from a brain which developed as a female/male yet has the opposite sexual organs (this is what science tells us).While the decisions to undergo sex change operations is strictly voluntary the biological/mental component is not voluntary.


One problem with biological determinism is that it could act as a form of justification for specific gender roles in human society, which someone like me who is influenced by feminism doesn't like.

It's true that the "simple biological explanation" of transgenderism seems to be neat, but it seems to be treating human brains and minds like electronic circuit boards to some extent.

Of course there is a biological basis for homosexuality/bisexuality and transgenderism, and frankly the factors that underpin these 3 things are probably related on an underlying level, but I think the actual situation is much more complex than that. The standard Marxist/historical materialist account of human sexuality is not just based on biology, but also on the history of class society. It's very possible that the majority of humans have the potentiality for bisexuality but this is mostly consciously and subconsciously suppressed since the rise of patriarchy and class society thousands of years ago. That is to say, there is a certain underlying reason for queer people to overthrow class society, beyond the simple "I'm a queer and also a worker and as a worker I should oppose capitalism", because a classless society is intrinsically conducive to queer liberation, and not just beneficial for working class and poor queers. (In a similar way to how the abolishment of class society would be a good thing for women's liberation in general)

BTW, what's your view on "genderqueer-ness"? Is it real?

Also, do you realise that you are arguing from "first principles", rather than empirical evidence? You have no empirical evidence to suggest that the majority of humanity experience sexuality along very similar lines. And I don't usually place my faith in "evolutionary psychological" arguments from "first principles".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

One problem with biological determinism is that it could act as a form of justification for specific gender roles in human society, which someone like me who is influenced by feminism doesn't like.

This is the first time I have heard such a statement being said and I don't believe it whatsoever.Before I was socialist I was deep into the far right and never once did I hear something similar to what you are saying now.However, even if that were true and some people would try to impose that I see Feminism as the natural deterrent to blocking such measures being taken.


It's true that the "simple biological explanation" of transgenderism seems to be neat, but it seems to be treating human brains and minds like electronic circuit boards to some extent.

I do not see the problem with that.I have always seen the human brain much like a computer with rigid, pre-defined "programs."


Of course there is a biological basis for homosexuality/bisexuality and transgenderism, and frankly the factors that underpin these 3 things are probably related on an underlying level, but I think the actual situation is much more complex than that. The standard Marxist/historical materialist account of human sexuality is not just based on biology, but also on the history of class society. It's very possible that the majority of humans have the potentially for bisexuality but this is mostly consciously and subconsciously suppressed since the rise of patriarchy and class society thousands of years ago. That is to say, there is a certain underlying reason for queer people to overthrow class society, beyond the simple "I'm a queer and also a worker and as a worker I should oppose capitalism", because a classless society is intrinsically conducive to queer liberation intrinsically, and not just beneficial for working class and poor queers. (In a similar way to how the abolishment of class society would be a good thing for women's liberation in general)

This is where we differ: you believe that class struggle as something to do with it while I firmly believe that it is "written" into us from birth.

I have heard of this theory of universal bisexuality before though I can't say I have actually read the source material.There might be some underlying truth in this since I think we can safely agree that everyone (regardless of whether they are hetero,homo,Bi,or Trans) have has at least semi-sexual dreams in where they were "interacting" with a member of the sex which they aren't attracted to during the waking periods.

However,this is hardly indicative of anything involving choice or the theory at hand and still needs much proof for it to mean anything to me.I agree that a classless society would be conductive to queer liberation but I have a feeling we have different ideas as to what this is.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do not see the problem with that.I have always seen the human brain much like a computer with rigid, pre-defined "programs."


If psychological gender is hardwired into the human brain in such a mechanical and reductionist way, then the idea that men and women are psychologically distinct would logically follow. I'm surprised you are not drawing such a natural conclusion.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

BTW, what's your view on "genderqueer-ness"? Is it real?

I have only heard the term fleetingly so I couldn't say much on it.


Also, do you realise that you are arguing from "first principles", rather than empirical evidence? You have no empirical evidence to suggest that the majority of humanity experience sexuality along very similar lines. And I don't usually place my faith in "evolutionary psychological" arguments from "first principles".

Well,I do place my faith in them because because there are many homosexuals,heterosexuals,Bisexuals and Transsexuals.I consider all of this evidence (much better evidence than simply stating that Marx's "Materialism" has a place in sexuality).

(Evolutionary psychology explains human behavior from an evolutionary perspective...I would not consider sexualities and identities from something "evolved" as it has always been with us)


If psychological gender is hardwired into the human brain in such a mechanical and reductionist way, then the idea that men and women are psychologically distinct would logically follow. I'm surprised you are not drawing such a natural conclusion.

I do believe they are hardwired different.Now,I do not believe that they are so different that discrimination is justified but rather each gender is prone to perform better in different areas of mental function.There have been some studies which prove this.Each human is different and can overcome such differences but there is a biological difference.

[Meridian]

I do not see the problem with that.I have always seen the human brain much like a computer with rigid, pre-defined "programs."
This can only have some value now that we have computers. Before, they would perhaps say it was more like a machine with cogwheels.

It is easy to relate the brain to a computer, because through a computer you control programs (and things in programs) much like we control our bodies. In fact, the computer is in some ways meant to be an extension of ourselves, since it is such a widely useful tool. This is taken directly advantage of in games where you control a character.

However, to say that human brains *are* computers is a metaphor and you have to be aware of it. A major weakness of the metaphor is that there is nothing controlling your brain, like there is a user giving commands to a computer. Suggesting otherwise is a 'Homunculus argument'.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

This can only have some value now that we have computers. Before, they would perhaps say it was more like a machine with cogwheels.

It is easy to relate the brain to a computer, because through a computer you control programs (and things in programs) much like we control our bodies. In fact, the computer is in some ways meant to be an extension of ourselves, since it is such a widely useful tool. This is taken directly advantage of in games where you control a character.

However, to say that human brains *are* computers is a metaphor and you have to be aware of it. A major weakness of the metaphor is that there is nothing controlling your brain, like there is a user giving commands to a computer. Suggesting otherwise is a 'Homunculus argument'.

I never said it was a computer, merely that in regards to pre-defined characteristics is was like a computer.I do not believe there is something controlling your brain.It runs independently accordingly to your genetics/DNA.

[Queercommie Girl]

I have only heard the term fleetingly so I couldn't say much on it.


All it means is that it refers to people who identify as either "neither male nor female" or "both male and female", i.e. transcending the gender binary explicitly.

[EvilRedGuy]

I don't care im a free human being. Evidence is fascist.


:rolleyes::lol:

Okay get on-topic now, i won't talk with you anymore on this subject. Feel free to talk with Queercommie Girl though.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

All it means is that it refers to people who identify as either "neither male nor female" or "both male and female", i.e. transcending the gender binary explicitly.

Ah,okay,if that's the case than I do believe in the existence of such people.I consider it part of their identity.