Controversy in Conversation

[AngryMan]

Completely irrelevant to the conversation, really, but every study I've seen on female sexuality in western cultures suggests that women are much more likely to be flexible in their orientation than men. Not sure why that is, but I think it's rather fascinating. But then of course, I would.

I have a theory about this.

It's my belief that nearly every human being on the planet is, to some degree or another, bisexual. pure heterosexuality is the exception, not the norm. Our base state is low-grade bisexuality with a strong preference. In some people, the innate preference is reversed, or equal. It's what allows both genders to watch porn without getting grossed out by the presence of an actor of their own gender.

However, this outlook is malleable, and can be shaped by the environment in which the person is raised. There is no such thing as a completely sexually permissive culture. The closest we come is the West, and even here the general bias is that Straight is good, but Gay is only "tolerable".

Here's where it gets quirky, however, because Western culture has a double-standard. Male-male relationships are the subject of a degree of subtly negative ridicule. By associating "gay culture" with traditionally "feminine" pursuits such as clothes fashion, our culture creates the general impression that guy-gay is not manly. We perpetuate the "fairy" stereotype, with all its negative connotations. In short, men are encouraged to be straight.

Girl-gay, on the other hand, is romanticized. Even if we ignore all the porn for a second, there's still vastly more positive representation of girl-girl relationships out there, than of guy-guy. "The 'L' Word", "Buffy" are just the two examples I can pull off the top of my head, but can you name a single successful TV series (Besides "Will & Grace", and even that one's dodgy...) that perpetuates a positive portrayal of gay men? I bet you won't manage it without pretty extensive research...

If two guys make out at a party, they'll be shunned. People will do their best to ignore it, and will feel uncomfortable. Two girls making out, however, is an invitation for cheering frat boys to gather round, raise their beers and whoop loudly.

Result? Guys feel pressured into staying straight. The culture we grow up in constantly barrages us with the impression that having it off with another dude will undermine our social standing.

For girls, that pressure is massively reduced, to the point where some people just don't feel it. As such, the more natural human orientation - effective bisexuality with a strong preference towards the other gender - is expressed properly. Some may even feel encouraged, shifting their effective orientation closer to true bisexuality than it otherwise would have been.

So yeah, I agree that women are more likely to be flexible in their orientation than men, but my theory is that said flexibility is more a product of the social environment, rather than being the result of any real predisposition.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

How about hockey? (was just back in the GH thread and realized you're the same person who was talking about how a one-timer is usually no better a shot than one where the goalie has time to see the shot coming in real-life hockey)

A lot more of this makes sense now. You just...basically talk out of your ass all the time, don't you?

actually i didn't but thanx for yet again proving how you miss my point and not comprehend what i've written.

also that you have decided to only resort to personal attacks and name calling in order to show your superiority, shows how i've outsmarted you. name calling is the last resort of the desperate

i actually do a lot of reading and ask a lot of questions, i enjoy the pursuit of knowledge

as for the one timer shot, ask anyone who plays hockey lots, it's hardly ever used in a real game of hockey because it's so hard to setup, on a power play maybe because the other team is down a man. irl hockey it's a hard shot to setup, video game hockey makes it a lot easier

sorry to those for semi-crossing this over

@Angryman

you are correct about that, the girl-girl thing is more instinctual for guys tho, because we can score and get BOTH women pregnant or at least try to. but also society says it's ok for women to be more open and emotional with one another

the funny part comes in film tho, guy blatantly masturbating (kevin spacey in american beauty) gets an r rating at the most, female masturbating (sorry forget the film name, tho there are several) gets an nc-17 rating for that specific scene

total double standard

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Wow, that is exactly what I was thinking... I often come off as pompous or arrogant because I don't sugar coat, "You don't know what you are talking about" by couching it in terms of "I am sorry, but I must disagree with you because recent studies show that your ideas are out of date...

How many times have you gotten a good dialog going with using the former line instead of the latter?

Now, if the person turns out to be a moron that you're never going to convince of anything no matter what because of how stupid they are--like cleverlymadeup--after you've been civil to them, that's different. However, if you say to a racist "Pay attention dipshit," that's about where the dipshit stops listening to anything you have to say.

It's not about PC. It's about being honest with yourself about what you intend to accomplish when you respond to someone. Do you want a dialog with the person, or do you just want to call them stupid? Because I don't think anyone in the history of the world has been convinced by someone starting off the conversation by putting them down.

I would also add that, if you genuinely wish to convince someone, you can't just be "nice" about it - you have to be be willing to listen too. I think that's where a lot of "they're just being PC" comes from. Anyone can tell when the person arguing with them is really listening. The big clue that neither person is listening is that they eventually end up in a "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't!" loop and no one gets convinced of anything except the futility of arguing about certain subjects.

Monty Python has a remarkably concise demonstration of the different styles of unproductive internet wrangling [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k], including the appearance of a banhammer and mods at the end.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Monty Python has a remarkably concise demonstration of the different styles of unproductive internet wrangling [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k], including the appearance of a banhammer and mods at the end.

"Thats just contradiction"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is"

This thread has gone to hell, lets just quote Month Python untill someone locks it for good.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But I paid for a 1000 post argument!

 

[Fire Daemon]

But I paid for a 1000 post argument!

No you didn't.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But I paid for a 1000 post argument!

No you didn't.

ooh I did.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

But I paid for a 1000 post argument!

No you didn't.

ooh I did.

hey who let those vikings in here?

 

[John Galt]

I don't mind the yin, but you fail to turn the yin on your own point of view. What if the good Herr Doctor discovers something which in turn kills millions of people? If only you'd let him die... When you choose to save one unknown at the sacrifice of some other unknown, then you're engaging in a game of odds. Some people consider it immoral to play odds with people's lives (in a proactive manner).

What 'some people' think is not relevant to the equation. What matters is whether the parents of the tasty little cell blob and the doctor think it's moral. The doctor has friends and family and the little embryo has no ties to this world. Seeing them as two unknowns as their relation to societal impact is valid, however, saying that they're equal as unknowns is not. Even if the doctor does nothing more with his life than keep his wife company in their house in Palm Beach, he still has a greater impact than the fetus currently growing. Say a friend of your family is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Why wouldn't it be moral to start a pregnancy with the intention of saving your friend?


*Valiantly tries to save the thread*

 

[Geoffrey42]

What 'some people' think is not relevant to the equation. What matters is whether the parents of the tasty little cell blob and the doctor think it's moral. The doctor has friends and family and the little embryo has no ties to this world. Seeing them as two unknowns as their relation to societal impact is valid, however, saying that they're equal as unknowns is not. Even if the doctor does nothing more with his life than keep his wife company in their house in Palm Beach, he still has a greater impact than the fetus currently growing. Say a friend of your family is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Why wouldn't it be moral to start a pregnancy with the intention of saving your friend?


*Valiantly tries to save the thread*

I would argue that whether what 'some people' think is relevant or not, all depends on the moral framework that we choose. If we're operating under those individuals' moral framework, then, even if they are not directly involved with the transaction between the procreators, the blob, and the doctor, what they think is relevant. If we're operating under your moral framework, then what they think does not matter. If we're operating under MY framework, what they think doesn't matter (this is where it gets fun).

If I were making up hypothetical stances that people could take, and then arguing that we have to factor those in, then I should and would be dismissed for bringing them up. But I'm not; these are points of view held by people in this world, they just don't seem to be in this room. As Devil's Advocate, I often find that despite my disagreement with people not present to defend themselves, I feel the need to represent their point of view to maintain balance in the world. This is just what I do, unless they're representing themselves, in which case I argue with them bitterly.

EDIT: P.S. If you want to dismiss the argument just because they're not here, I can switch from Devil's Advocate to personal advocate, and actually claim that I think its immoral to sacrifice one life for another (which kicks us off into a debate on where life begins, etc). Then you get to deal with me believing in God, and this all just gets really messy... Suffice it to say, without an assumed, upfront statement of the moral system under which we're operating, it is all kind of a moot point.

 

[John Galt]

*Geoffrey steps in, a quick pound to the chest brings the thread back to life!*

I think we can get another page or so out of this if we switch over to our own personal views.

Since you've claimed that you don't like to sacrifice one life for another, think of this: Imagine a society in which embryo harvesting was the norm rather than the exception, and that only a select few went on to produce human beings. Now, when you've switched the tables like this, it would seem as if you're sacrificing the doctor to save the baby. How would that be different from killing the baby to save him?

 

[AngryMan]

Say a friend of your family is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Why wouldn't it be moral to start a pregnancy with the intention of saving your friend?

if it involved starting a pregnancy, I could understand the controversy. A pregnancy at least has a very high probability of producing a living human being at the end of it all. One should never end a life to save a life, IMO. (Organ donation is a case of using a life that has already ended for unrelated reasons to save another, and is fine by me)

The actual process we're talking about here, however, involves artificially creating a cluster of cells from human gene-stock in a lab, the viability of which is effectively 0. No life can begin from this process, therefore no life is being ended by it. The moral dilemma that hovers over the entire issue simply should not exist.

If there is one thing that I hold a universal despising for, it is the creation of a belief, statement or stance on an issue without comprehensive research first. Aside from all the "stem cell research is baby murder" people, take those rare occasions when a mainstream source of media runs an article on video games. The minor wave of newspaper articles about the "ultra-violent Grand Theft Auto IV which allows players to murder people in hundreds of realistic ways" for example. Technically, they are accurate, I suppose. Grand Theft Auto "allows" that sort of thing to happen in the same way that the real world "allows" it to happen - you could do it, if you didn't really mind the consequences. Just look at things like Virginia Tech.

The way these people write, however, you'd think all there is to the game is death, killing, death, murder, death, slaughter, death, homicide and death. No mention of the black comedy, the political satire, the biting social commentary or the statement on the driving forces that can turn a well-meaning individual to a life of crime. Nope, none of that is mentioned it's all "you can hire a hooker, bang her in the car, then kill her and take your money back." and a lot of nebulous outrage.

Wherever I see an article purely discussing the violence inherent in the GTA series, I know for a fact that the people writing it have not played the game.

In every instance, I feel like I should demand that their journalist's license be revoked.

 

[werepossum]

My ex-wife is a perfect example of this. If I tried to be nice to her, she would walk all over me. So I had to be blunt and say, "No, You are wrong, I had to do this before, and this is the way it is!" Otherwise she would just ignore me, do it wrong, and make me have to spend twice the amount of time fixing it. It rarely happens outside of situations like that, but there it is.

Man, I knew so many girls like that when I was young, treat them good and they don't rerspect you, treat them badly and they can't get enough. I learned to just avoid them - why would I want to be with someone if I have to be an asshole around her?

 

[MrHappy255]

I appologize if you took my words as being racist, what I was pointing out was that no matter what everyone should be treated the same no matter what. No one should have a better or worse chance to educate themselves and enjoy their life. Why should someone be given a benefit that others are not allowed.

Sad but true life is not fair, I do not know how many times as a child we are told this. I came from a very poor family and worked hard with no benefits and improved my station through education. I did not expect any benefits and neither should anyone else.

I know what I am saying is almost sacriledge in this day and age of political correctness but I cannot help it. In my job I see so many people waste their lives even after given every benefit available to them.

If you do not struggle for something, If you are handed it why should you work for it and will you appreciate it when you have it?

 

[MrHappy255]

People. Hark to the words of Seldon2639.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4622/ia3yp.jpg

This is the internet. No matter what you say or what conclusions you arrive at, no change will come of it.

Ya but it sure makes for a good laugh and a possible smile or two while attempting to excersise that most underused muscle the brain.

 

[John Galt]

if it involved starting a pregnancy, I could understand the controversy. A pregnancy at least has a very high probability of producing a living human being at the end of it all. One should never end a life to save a life, IMO. (Organ donation is a case of using a life that has already ended for unrelated reasons to save another, and is fine by me)

Well, now we have to answer the question of what is human. I see human as a being capable of higher-order thought and possessing a consciousness. An embryo has neither of those and therefore I don't classify it as 'human' in the terms of whether or not it has the ability to live beyond cellular processes. However, the odds are that you feel differently about what human is and therefore it will be nigh impossible for either of us to convince eachother. Therefore, I can only hope that my gang gets into Washington before your gang.

 

[AngryMan]

Actually, I agree with you. Totally.

Here's where you miss my point however - stem cells are not extracted from embryos.

This is the single biggest misconception upon which the entire oppposition to the science is founded. what they are extracted from is so much less than an embryo. the only thing remotely human about these things is the DNA that they carry.

It's my firmly held belief that a decision should never be made unless it is made by somebody who possesses at least a working knowledge of the topic at hand. You don't need to be an expert on the subject, but it's important to at least know what you're talking about.

Maybe it's slightly naive of me to try and hold the entire damn human race to that standard, but I reckon that if the whole world was the same kind of naive as me, we'd be a lot better off.

 

[000Ronald]

After reading the last few pages of this I get the impression that this thread has deviated into a discussion concerning the morality of thinking of humans simply on a cellular level (seems a bit self contradictory to me, but I don't want to have to apologize for continuously digressing). Things like stem cell research and cloning and what have you.

This inherently brings about two opposing arguments, in my experience; these arguments can be summed up in three words: Nature versus Nurture. Is every single thing we do dominated by chemicals excreted by our cells, or are the majority of your decisions based on the decisions you saw people make when you were young? While this is certainly a fun and cheeky way to look at it, I feel both arguments are missing something very important, something I will demonstrate by using myself as a guinea pig.

I am not the result of the society that I was raised in. I am the result of a single choice, a choice that I made by myself; While I strive to exhibit certain qualities that people I have admired in the past did, I also have qualities that seem to come from seemingly nowhere. I am an individual, a person you will never meet anyone even remotely like in your life, ever again (a fact I take great pride in).

In short, I am who I have chosen to be.

Is this possible?

Is this a lie?

Am I, as I have proven to be in the past, an exception to the rule?

Can a person choose to flick the birdie to their genetic heritage and the sins of their fathers?

Just a thought.

Apologies if you don't understand what I'm saying; If need be, I have other examples.

 

[John Galt]

Actually, I agree with you. Totally.

Here's where you miss my point however - stem cells are not extracted from embryos.

This is the single biggest misconception upon which the entire oppposition to the science is founded. what they are extracted from is so much less than an embryo. the only thing remotely human about these things is the DNA that they carry.

Hooray, I'm less evil than I thought. Remember kids, when you don't know too much about the issue, just go for the view that nets you the most life-prolonging cells.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Completely irrelevant to the conversation, really, but every study I've seen on female sexuality in western cultures suggests that women are much more likely to be flexible in their orientation than men. Not sure why that is, but I think it's rather fascinating. But then of course, I would.

actually it's more socially acceptable for women to have a more grey area, it is said that EVERYONE is bisexual, it's how far towards one end of the spectrum we want to swing (pun intended)

it's more common for women to walk around a change room or dorm wearing little to no clothing, exposing their breasts and genitals, but in a male change room or dorm it's not as common, because someone might stare at you and that would make you gay and being gay is bad in society's eyes

but see lesbianism isn't always thought of as a bad thing in society's eyes because instead of mating with 1 woman the male can now mate with 2 at the same time and not to mention the females fighting for his attention

in victorian england it was illegal to be a male homosexual but it was perfectly legal for lesbians to exist.

First, there's a distinction between lesbian behavior intended primarily for male display (Girls Gone Wild much?) and being a lesbian. In your 1 guy/2 girl scenario above, if it is lesbian display behavior, then yes, he gets a two-for-one deal. However, if the women are lesbian, your dude gets no pussy. And while lesbian display behavior may make a girl very popular with the guys at the local nightclub, two women in an actual lesbian relationship historically generate a lot of hostility.

Also, and I'm really not asking this to be snotty, how do you come by your knowledge of comparative dressing room behavior? Because I readily admit I have no knowledge besides what I have heard from guys about locker room behavior and a lot of that is really contradictory. In the women's locker rooms that I have been in, the women are generally pretty modest, which I think has more to do with anxiety about weight and physical imperfection than sexuality.

And I believe that lesbianism was not added to the Victorian anti-homosexuality statute because it was believed that women had no sexuality of their own outside of the fulfillment of male desires, and so did not need to be prohibited.

I just wandered over to see what Cheeze was up to, so you needn't actually responde unless you wish to do so. This thread, from what I have seen, has unravelled in too many directions, some of them less productive than others, for me to resume participation in it again.