|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. To ensure as much as possible that you can't twist my words any further, I've decided to erase the first part of ny comment and just leave you with this: Whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal (though thanks for clarifying). That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! Question: What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality Homosexuality continues to make headlines on a daily basis. There is a major movement today to promote homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, and it has even become a “hot potato” subject in politics and in schools today. It is likely that you probably know at least one person that struggles with homosexuality, and as a Christian you need to know what the Bible says about the lifestyle choice. ---- from "What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality" So once more... ![]() I'm not afraid of your hardline rhetoric, nor can you lie to me like how you had lied to your homosexual friend. As long as you're as stupid and arrogant as those of the religious faith can get. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! Question: What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality Homosexuality continues to make headlines on a daily basis. There is a major movement today to promote homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, and it has even become a “hot potato” subject in politics and in schools today. It is likely that you probably know at least one person that struggles with homosexuality, and as a Christian you need to know what the Bible says about the lifestyle choice. ---- from "What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality" So once more... ![]() I'm not afraid of your hardline rhetoric, nor can you lie to me like how you had lied to your homosexual friend. As long as you're as stupid and arrogant as those of the religious faith can get. And now you're claiming that I've been lying to my friend as well. You have no shame, do you? And also claiming that I am one of the religious bigots? |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! Question: What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality Homosexuality continues to make headlines on a daily basis. There is a major movement today to promote homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, and it has even become a “hot potato” subject in politics and in schools today. It is likely that you probably know at least one person that struggles with homosexuality, and as a Christian you need to know what the Bible says about the lifestyle choice. ---- from "What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality" So once more... ![]() I'm not afraid of your hardline rhetoric, nor can you lie to me like how you had lied to your homosexual friend. As long as you're as stupid and arrogant as those of the religious faith can get. And now you're claiming that I've been lying to my friend as well. You have no shame, do you? And also claiming that I am one of the religious bigots? |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! Question: What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality Homosexuality continues to make headlines on a daily basis. There is a major movement today to promote homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, and it has even become a “hot potato” subject in politics and in schools today. It is likely that you probably know at least one person that struggles with homosexuality, and as a Christian you need to know what the Bible says about the lifestyle choice. ---- from "What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality" So once more... ![]() I'm not afraid of your hardline rhetoric, nor can you lie to me like how you had lied to your homosexual friend. As long as you're as stupid and arrogant as those of the religious faith can get. And now you're claiming that I've been lying to my friend as well. You have no shame, do you? And also claiming that I am one of the religious bigots? Remember how I tried to spell my opinion out earlier? That was because my first post was put in a wrong way, and was easy to misinterprate. I even said so myself. It was an attempt to clarify my opinion. To correct my own mistake. Yet you just dismiss that, and keep focusing on my poorly written first comment, which I've already admitted to, was poorly written and vague. |
|
Singing in the imaginary snow.
|
|
|
Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: DomFortress wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Syndicaidramon wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Because your opinion on how human sexuality is a choice is both unrealistic and overgeneralizing. When it doesn't explain the reality of involuntary human sexual activity due to battering, and sexual objectification in the mainstream culture. Because both are sociological and cultural forces that's beyond individuals' control. I fail to see how the sexual objectification in the mainstream culture is supposed to somehow rid us from the responsibility that comes with our free will, and even less how it makes us engage in involuntary sexual activity. Yeah, except it's really not. By free will, one does not mean that one is free from or unaffected by one's environment and the environment of one's parents. Free will means that when you're faced with something, you have the ability to choose how you want to proceed. Like if we put it in the context of the topic. Let's say for instance that you're a 15-20 year old boy. You have realized that you are attracted to boys. Yet not very attracted to girls. You're gay. This poses a problem because your family is a strict religious family. You know that if you tell your family about this, there will be strong reactions. And if you choose to live your life as a homosexual, you may even be disowned by your parents. So what do you do? Do you keep your family in the dark or do you choose to come out and let what happens next happen? Thinking through this dilemma and concidering the outcomes of each alternative and then acting accordingly to what you've decided that you want to do is an example of free will. You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE. What you do choose will be decided by various factors, like you say, but that's how it is for everyone. No one is born in the exact same environment with the exact same conditions. Moreover, the presence of an unknown provides a sense of uncertainty for the consequence of one's action. And whenever that happens humans' default and thus involuntary response as social animals, is the irrational behavior of social conformity. Finally, gayness aka effeminacy being a character trait is gender neutral. And this unrealistic and abusive cultural bias that society has over men called "the man box", aka male gender ideology/subculture, is damaging the relationship between men and women. It is true that these alternatives are technicly "unknowns" and that we cannot know the consequence for sure. However, when faced with a situation that requires one to make a choice, one usually have some degree of knowledge about it. For instance, in the example I used, a person that is familiar with the teachings of the religion his/her family practices, and who has known them all his/her life, will be able to assume roughly what the outcome will PROBABLY be. And then make a choice based on that. And while involuntarily conforming to the social group is the case in SOME situations, like with a teenager trying to fit in with a certain group, it is certainly not something that occurs so often for an indicidual that one can use that argument to rule out the idea of free-will, just because one can never know for sure the outcome of one's actions. As for the "gayness" thing, it really varies from person to person. Even though effeminity = gayness is a stereotype for a reason, I think most people that aren't totally ignorant know that's not the case. And while there are still a lot of people who do seem to think that, I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide OBJECTION! Your "example" is an unrealistic hypothesis, because you didn't consider the reality of religious psychosocial oppression/repression onto the homosexuals called ex-gay ministry. Moreover, you were the ignorant oppressor here with your "Homosexuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice" misinformation. And insofar, I've not seem you apologizing for your own lack of progress. System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be." Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation) So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo. Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice. Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something. Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it? In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex. Doesn't really answer my question, but okay... As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario. According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter. There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay. I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family. Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice. However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice. If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it. I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen. Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well.. And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world... Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none. I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality. Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against. Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world. As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that. And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say. You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves. So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself. I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said. The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life. I never said orientation was a choice. Ever. And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand? Moreover, no, you didn't claim that "fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" was something that you "thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do" in the first place. Because here you rather forcefully claimed with emphasis that "You are not FORCED to make either choices. You can CHOOSE". Therefore are you saying that for those who "choose" to accept the "religious dogma of homosexual discrimination" are responsible for their own consequences afterward? Just because the homosexuals knew that they'll get discriminated if they choose to come out of hiding, doesn't mean that sexual discrimination of any kind is OK. And yet you were willing to go through with it, by yourself honoring individual freedom to make informed choice. So no, you don't have to "spell out every single detail" like you're about to do me some great favor. I can do that on my own term, so you can go ahead and throw a tantrum over the internet regarding gay marriage all you want. But that still won't help your homosexual friend, who's suffering from child abuse in the form of negligence, if that is you really do have one. You are twisting my words so much, it's unbelievable. I never said anything about sexual orientation or preference until you brought it up. And I also never said that one humans can change their sexuality if they want to, nor did I say that sexual discrimination is in any way OK. Where are you getting this from? So whether it's you who are unable or just not willing to understand, or just me who suck at putting things properly, I obviously have to spell it out: I do not in ANY way condone sexual discrimination. I belive in equality for everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual preference. And that also means I think we should fight against religious dogmas and ignorance. And I do not belive sexual orientation/preference is something that can be chosen or simply changed. Is that sufficient enough for you? And whatever happened to your "homosexual friend", when you could had been inferring to yourself. Well, were you? Okay, so I got the definitions mixed up. Big deal. That doesn't change what I was trying to say. I don't know what inferring means, and since I'm typing on my phone, I'm not gonna bother finding it out right now. All that matters is what I intended to explain. It has nothing to do with an intense desire to be right. Just a desire to clarify things. The "big deal" part was only added because even though I was mistaken about the definitions, it didn't matter for what I was trying to say. You understood what I was trying to say, thus it was not something that was a big deal in this specific case. Because the point still came across. Yeah, I messed up. But it shouldn't matter, because that detail was not the overall message. You'be been placing far too much weight on that one detail and refused to just accept what I was trying to get across. And the message was not that I am perfect about the definitions of things. It was that I don't condone discrimination of homosexuals. Why can't you just leave a detail so trivial to the overall message alone? As for my homosexual friend, no. I didn't lie. So yeah, some self-righteous ignoramus of a friend you turned out to be. You're of no help at all, when the fact is you were just lying to cover for your own sorry self. On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three. ---- from "Pamela Meyer: How to spot a liar" This is unbelievable. Now you're acting like you know how I feel about condemning religious ignorance. Me being mistaken Does in no way give religious organizations or people an excuse to discriminate. Discrimination based on the ground of ignorance is never excusable. I condemn every single instance of it. I am not afraid to stand up against religious bigotry, and I have no reason to be afraid. Get that into your head. And on TOP of that, you think you know ANYTHING about how I have treated my friend when she needed support? You are doing nothing but spouting empty claims and lies! Question: What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality Homosexuality continues to make headlines on a daily basis. There is a major movement today to promote homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice, and it has even become a “hot potato” subject in politics and in schools today. It is likely that you probably know at least one person that struggles with homosexuality, and as a Christian you need to know what the Bible says about the lifestyle choice. ---- from "What the Bible Says About... Homosexuality" So once more... ![]() I'm not afraid of your hardline rhetoric, nor can you lie to me like how you had lied to your homosexual friend. As long as you're as stupid and arrogant as those of the religious faith can get. And now you're claiming that I've been lying to my friend as well. You have no shame, do you? And also claiming that I am one of the religious bigots? Remember how I tried to spell my opinion out earlier? That was because my first post was put in a wrong way, and was easy to misinterprate. I even said so myself. It was an attempt to clarify my opinion. To correct my own mistake. Yet you just dismiss that, and keep focusing on my poorly written first comment, which I've already admitted to, was poorly written and vague. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
Popular Shows |
Platforms and Devices |
Premium MembershipsLanguage
|
Support |
Crunchyroll |