zedvictor4

I thought that the Suns were a bit sporadic.

What do you think Doc?

She's probably a Republican.

So what would it depend upon?

There's a trans women who is  barber in my local town.

She looks reasonably masculine, but also obviously feminine.

So without prior knowledge of her physical capabilities......Would a gay man regard her as a man, would a straight women regard her as a man, would a lesbian regard her as a women or might a straight man regard her as a women?

And  would she be a lesbian or straight?  Or could she ever really be a straight man?

Without the relevant information we have to make choices based solely on attraction.

So if you were attracted to a very masculine looking  trans women, what would you do once the pants were off?

Homophobia is more a repulsion of the sex act, rather than of the proclivity. 

Nonetheless, the whole issue of alternative sexuality is far from clear and resolved.

Kids should not be taught indeterminate information in schools.

Death is usually 100%.

Old Abraham was really of his head wasn't he?

I thought you might remember Bronski Beat.

And you said that being attracted to a man wasn't a choice the last time. So I just wondered if it was the first time.

And true...Being attracted to someone is being attracted to someone...I've never said that it wasn't.

But you can choose whether to fuck them or not.

And out of interest, do you find trans women attractive?

Was that meant to read, are better bullshit.

And have you ever heard of the Sporadic Wylt Aphid that is seriously affecting pollination in banana flowers?

People exist and label themselves as all sorts of things.

It's not a sporadic thing.

So was it a choice the first time?

And what is a whatever?

And when one was does "whatever sexual activity" is that a genetic predisposition or just a sporadic thing?

And do you remember Jimmy Somerville?

So GOD fucked Joes missus, and gave birth to himself. 

How sporadic is that!

To be honest your above comments are perhaps a better example of a "clusterfuck".

Fantastic word though....I will try and make sporadic use of it.

And I believe, that high end sex dolls are becoming a popular choice....male , female  or androgynous  you choose.

Though perhaps  it's a genetic thing.

Urgency....Get the doll out of the cupboard....Achieve temporary satisfaction....Roll over and go to sleep....And repeat....Same old, same old.

Make sure in the morning, to clean and dry  thoroughly and put back into cupboard ready for  next time.

And if your feeling horny in the morning, there's always the choice of masturbation, if you don't fancy sloppy seconds.

Sorted.

My assumption was that the O.P  was actually a dig at the Democrats. Rather than a real  concern for ongoing bus technology.

But we all make sporadic miscalculations of judgement.

Life outcomes are influenced by a plethora of social factors.

IQ is influenced by life outcomes and inherent predisposition.

Therefore research would suggest that life outcomes + predisposition = IQ = life outcomes.

Though a high IQ is no guarantee of social success.

Research and statistics are  indicative of  trends and expectancies....The normal expectancies relative to a particular social environment, as it were.

So basically, IQ is a valid metric of IQ expectancy, relative to social and physiological  factors that might or might not positively or negatively influence life outcomes.

So are we proving anything that we didn't already know?

The same old arguments apply really.

Though "lighter than" makes it sound like you're selling a fat free yoghurt.

Death penalty for murder only. Though socially prescribed death is no less murder....Only socially prescribed.

And social justice is regularly proven to be fallible....You can't bring a wrongly convicted person back to life once you've killed them.

No offence....But perhaps a disregard for the individual is a Chinese thing?

I love your sporadic interjections.

Nice response.

Sadly Shaolin Monks are a tad thin on the ground around here. Though I'm pretty good at  contemplation. And after all the first Shaolin Monk was the first Shaolin Monk, so he must have been self taught.

@Theweakeredge.

Fundamentally being human is a brain state....No brain, zilch....And some people enjoy vanilla and chocolate....And some people just love ice cream...And some don't like it at all.

And attraction is attraction....Your just stating the obvious.

Some men are attractive and some men are more attractive than some women, but I choose not to partake in sex with attractive men....Social conditioning ...An acquired brain state.

Social conditioning is somewhat more liberal  these days, in certain societies.  So consequently, some people have the social freedom to  openly choose how they satisfy their sex drive.  If I had been born 20 years ago, then who knows what different socially inspired  choices I would have made.

So you choose.....Chocolate or vanilla or both....And stop bullshitting.

Though fundamentally, ice cream is still ice cream.....And flavours are a tasty modifications thereof.

Yes your definition was correct...I agreed....Physiological abnormalities are separate issues.

All relationships are social constructs...You agree....Not genetics...Whoopty freakin do!

Societies require conformity...We agree.

No one mentioned fetishes...We were discussing standard recreational sex choices....No whipped cream necessary.

Life long same sex relationships....Most creatures will have life long same sex relationships  of some description.....You still need to elaborate upon this, as it's not yet a substantive argument.

Hah?....?

Data in, data assessment, data storage, data out.  Choice is the process of analysing data and making a decision.

The point was, we are not discussing anything new. Homosexual recreational sex is  an old hat, time worn option. But  nowadays we have  more elaborate explanations as to why why we make the decisions that we do.

Urgency....Sex act.....Temporary satisfaction achieved.....Roll over and go to sleep....And repeat....Same old same old.

Justification not required....Ah!....Unfortunately not so......Hence "Being gay isn't a chioce".

What is really being asked is......It is OK for a man to enjoy recreational sex with another man isn't it.

And I say yes it is, it's absolutely fine, a perfectly functional solution to ones unavoidable requirements.... Has been for donkey's years, so stop making a song and dance about it....And give the whipped cream a go.....Your choice though.

Which humans in particular...There's been a few billion to choose from.

And that's both before and after humans invented a perfect GOD.

Have you ever  seen a person that is actually black or a actually white?

Even an Albino isn't actually White. 

All people display a variation in skin tone.

N.B....Nota bene....Look it up.

And I'm saying that we don't always know all the details...And  the media relies heavily upon sensationalism, rather than straightforward facts.

And Jamal or Trevan?....I couldn't find any pertinent references to a Jamal  in Georgia....And I found a Trayvon and a  Trevon, but neither was shot by Police.

CAH...By your definition is a physiological anomaly....As is DSD.

A Man or Women might be socially pressured for sure....What's new.

A homosexual is a Man that  participates in recreational sex with another man.

The nuclear family is as much a social construct as a gay relationship is.

And if you think about it, society is all about the pressures of conformity.

Sexual orientation is how we describe recreational sex preferences.

And correct.... Straight is a social construct also....Relative to heterosexual sex acts. 

And animals don't recognise the human concept of "Gay".  Please elaborate on this idea.

Not at all certain of the purpose of the hands, mouth and backside reference. Please elaborate on this idea too.

Is there a point?

Every new generation assumes that it discovered this new and amazing thing called sex.

And the current lot  think that they have discovered this new and exciting thing called "Gay".....Sorry, it's been around for millennia and is nothing new.

So why the constant need to justify ones actions with elaborate explanations?

Urgency...Sex act....Orgasm....Temporary satisfaction achieved....Roll over and go to sleep....And repeat.....Same old, same old.

It makes no difference who or what you might choose to share the bed with.

Absolutely.

Prayer is hard on the knees.

Contemplation is best done from a comfortable perspective.

And the repetition of sounds can can be therapeutic.

And I always think that the E in therapeutic is surplus to requirements.

Moral obligation is a variable concept.

Some were happy to turn Jews over to the Gestapo and some were not.

It's easy to pontificate from the 21st century

But what would you have done if you were a German National in 1945.

No Idea what CHA might be, as I could find no immediate contextual reference to it.

Nonetheless as ever I did state "Notwithstanding physiological anomalies".

And as I previously stated also, attraction relative to recreational sex may be genetically influenced, but is also certainly socially influenced and maybe also environmentally influenced.

Though the distinction I make, lies between procreation and recreation. Homosexual sex is a recreational derivative of the procreational drive, as are the many other methods of achieving sexual satisfaction. Choices Choices Choices.

And as I keep stressing "gay" as in relationship choices,  is a social construct and nothing whatsoever to do with genetics.

As for animals......My dog is happy to hump my leg, and my tortoise goes a bundle on my work boots......So is this special genetics or just the urge to procreate in the absence of an appropriate mate?

As for history...Nature has always thrown up developmental obscurities. That's stating the obvious....And homosexual sex has long since been a method of achieving orgasm.

So why do such protagonists have to keep writing so much into the justification of the obvious....Because historically, and (contrary to popular thinking) also currently, homosexual sex is a social taboo. 

Urgency...Sex act...Orgasm...Temporary satisfaction achieved...Roll over and go to sleep....And repeat.....Same old, same old.

Nor do I understand what is so difficult to grasp about the concept of prior testing.

And I have no such expectations of infallibility

What one does expect though, is  some  guarantee of durability.

As per example....Air liners will and do fail....But one expects that such planes have undergone a high level of  testing prior to going into service.

And it's reasonable to expect a bus to last longer than four years.

Human action is caused by something that preceded it.

Well, that's a  multi-edged question.

But within the context of our relevant Laws, then the answer is obviously no.

Simply because "sometimes",  can therefore inevitably be all times.....We would set a precedent.

Though people wittingly and unwittingly, regularly break the law, and these occurrences largely go unnoticed.

Such is the current inability to police every human action...We have to accept this.

However, if you mean, is it acceptable to challenge a States authority, in respect of human rights for example.

It might be argued that this ceases to be about the acceptability of social behaviour, and more about the acceptability of State behaviour.

This would seemingly transcend  the acceptability of State imposed laws.

With things such as mechanical equipment and technology, the expectation these days is that such things have been thoroughly tested prior to release  into the public domain. 

You wouldn't expect Boeing to not test it's new equipment before you went on vacation, would you?

Ah the plane's failing, but not to worry at least the problem will sorted for next time....KBOOOOOOM.

Media loves celebrity rape.

Of course the reality is, that once a tale is out there it's impossible to make it go away. And no one is particularly interested in the truth of the matter anyway.

Just the gory, salacious details.

Joe Biden, in the Town Hall on CNN.

So you don't know then.

Please be less of an asshole.

Can you please clarify this somewhat random statement.

And people do not usually fight for compass points.

And could they care less, or could they not care less?

And wherein lies a specific connection to Judaism?

I think that you will find that, slave traders and owners tended to have a Christian or Catholic bias.

Don't think that I ever mentioned toes.

And things manifest as they do for sure...But all such manifestations are subject to internal processes, to which we can subsequently attribute logic or illogic.

And your favoured use of the word retarded, is unfortunately, somewhat self indicative.

And definitions are not random if they directly relate to something stated previously.

And if I should try Nootropics.....Perhaps you should try Ritalin.

And you can comment on any of my posts....As the whole purpose and fun of the exercise is in formulating a response.

So are you saying that apart from the Police, everyone else is a model citizen.

And would you happily walk alone at night in a "Black Neighbourhood".

And the trouble with instances such as the above case you highlighted, is that these days the media tends prefer only one side of the story.

Nasty white cop abuses lovely upstanding black citizen....Is currently what sells.....How can one come to  an unbiased decision if one is only told half the story.

Though that is not to suggest that all white cops are perfectly motivated.

And Joe Biden discriminates internally....But so do we all, including every "Black" person.

N.B. Usually I refer to skin tone rather than incorrectly to Black and White.....I did so here as it seemed pertinent to my response.

No one is black and no one is white.....And to perpetuate the myth, is to perpetuate racism, and that applies to all people of all skin tones.

Notwithstanding physiological anomalies. There's nothing whatsoever confusing about the difference between a penis and a vagina.

Nor is there anything confusing about their intended purpose.

Mixed social messages relating to procreational urges and associated recreational sex is where the confusion arises.

As a species we have developed a social tendency, to overlook and misinterpret the intended purpose of our sex organs.

Penis in vagina = procreation.

Penis up another blokes backside = recreation.

Simple.

Living together, acquiring a mortgage and a nice new fitted kitchen, and then settling down with a new puppy = Social construct.

Experiment and choose.

Nonetheless. 7.9 billion and counting, so a lot of people are still getting the hang of it.

That's all conveniently subjective though.

When does a disorder not correlate to genes.

Harassment is only relative to  social behaviour. 

And "Gays" can choose not to participate in homosexual acts.

Dispassionately, there is no special distinction to be made between G and P.....The only difference is how they relate to currently accepted social behaviour.

Everything physiological correlates to the state of genes.

Though "Gay" is a social construct that correlates to human data management.

Controversial question:

Therefore, does the paedophile also possess a sexuality that correlates directly to the state of genes?

Absolutely.

Offence is in the head of the recipient , rather than in the head of the sender.

Though I fail to see how your previous  comments and prediction could be construed as being irrelevant and offensive.

So I stand by my conclusion, that the RatMan is perhaps a tad too oversensitive.

And perhaps also, they strive too much to be the voice of PC.

As you exemplified above, neither certain traits nor better traits, are necessarily perfect traits....In fact, certain traits can be profoundly undesirable.

Desirability  would seem to depend  as much upon the circumstance, as it does upon the trait itself. 

And better at what?

Wherein do you see the necessity for a specific betterness?

I would suggest, technological development.

I would also suggest that a diverse gene pool is always beneficial.

Pedigrees have a tendency to develop genetic flaws.

As far as we are able to know, everything is real.

And realistically, being "gay" doesn't matter, to anything other than thinking people. Which is why we have these discussions.

Though realistically, and notwithstanding physiological anomalies, humans are only humans, that can typically and realistically only be sub-categorized into male and female procreational bodies.

Whereas "gay" is a social construct relative to a male recreational sex methodology.

@RatMan

You're far too sensitive.

How can honesty be offensive?

"Feelings"....What actually  are feelings.

I would suggest that what you mean, is an internal response, based upon internally stored data.

A process that is manifesting somewhat illogically..

For sure....It all starts with education....And will evolve slowly.....There's no magic wand solution.

For sure, we find it necessary to sub-categorise...Academically discriminate, as it were.

And "white privilege" without a doubt....Social evolution as it were..

Trouble is, we expect established data to modify at the click of our fingers, and it just doesn't happen.

We have too much of a tendency to dwell in the past.....One of the drawbacks of memory and recall.

The current record is about 3.5 seconds....Quick hands Doc!

Back in the day (45 years ago) I could easily do it in less than a minute.

But I've long since forgotten the method.

Nothing uglier than a women's arms legs and face covered in an inky mess.

Some Tattooists may be very good. But the indelible scars are permanently bad.

The odd small tattoo that can be easily covered is Ok I suppose..... But unnecessary.

So what's the big deal with self-disfigurement?

Explain the "Hews".

In short:

All Jews shall have long noses.

All except Aaron.

And he'll have a square one.

Well.....That's what I was told.

The stoned age.......Bang on Doc.

Abraham was stoned, I've been saying that all along.

Nonetheless indicative of an illogical thought process.

As is.......I hate foster parents for no real reason other than myself.

True.

Everyone discriminates internally, but not everyone externalizes their discrimination unreasonably.

So......We see, internally assess and conclude, that your skin has a darker tone than ours (discrimination).   But we respect your individuality.

In the wider context of the social inequality of self defining sub-groups.... The term "Racism" has become a powerful, political tool....Though  sub-groups have a tendency to somewhat counterintuitively self discriminate  in the process.

I have a darker skin tone than you, therefore I should be treated differently. (Irrespective of my abilities and social responsibilities.)

Nonetheless there is an observable and positive evolution of data, skin tone, and ability.....But not as rapid a process as some would unreasonably expect.

N.B. The above comments are  designed only to represent current and observable Western trends.....But  could be applied globally to represent all instances where  discrimination based upon perceivable difference occurs.