zedvictor4

Because some clever dick suggested it and a lot of dimwits lacked the ability to question it.

And so as not to offend todays somewhat  brighter religious folk......I'm talking back in the day here.

Nonetheless, continuing to transfer such archaic ideology, isn't particularly bright.  Because what should by now have been rendered solely to history books is still taken quite seriously by some.

But hey....It fills the shelves with  Easter eggs just after the Christmas puddings have been removed to the bargain basement.

@RatMan

Pissing you off....Isn't difficult.

One might conclude that you actually enjoy being pissed off.....Sort of your signature trait, as it were.

A Republican is best defined as a Conservative democrat....Though some Republicans have a tendency to be more conservative and less democratic

Whereas a Democrat is a more liberal democrat. Though some Democrats have a tendency to be even more liberal and less democratic.

And then there will of course, be exceptions in both camps.

And then there will be those that don't wear any badges.

#87

Yep that's basically what I said. 

#88

There's no certainty that empathy will inspire any thing other than empathy.

And there's no certainty that sympathy will inspire anything other than sympathy.

Because people tend to be selfish, and guilt inspired altruism costs.

True altruists are very very thin on the ground.

Yep good point.

Sort of fits the hypothesis quite well.

Though the collapse of the universe is perhaps inevitable, the accumulation of all knowledge (GOD) ensures the resurrection.

Do you see how well that fits with the basic philosophy of the Bible.

Back in the day, knowledge didn't extend beyond the visible and limited science, so ideas remained human centred and were embellished/explained by human inspired super-natural myth. 

An unseen floaty about bloke, that gave birth to himself, then had himself nailed to a cross for our benefit, and then disappeared again....Doesn't quite cut the 21st century scientific mustard... Technologically inspired understanding and knowledge of the universe and it's processes.

For sure.

Sympathy is a direct and motivating response to a stimulus.

Whereas empathy is  perhaps a more  intuitive response.

I refer to it as a universal sequence.

And GOD represents the ultimate of knowledge and material development .  And is certainly not the Man of story books.

Though most popular God based hypotheses share a similar basic principle.

In so much as GOD enables the recreation of life and intelligence and intelligent life assists in the recreation of GOD....Thus perpetuating the sequence.

I would therefore  suggest, that this has all happened before, many times.

Associated tall tales are just a product of the imagination....Though to write them off completely, would be to deny a significant part of human development.

Donating is easy if one has spare money to donate, and remote from any real need to empathise.

By definition we empathise with those we empathise with.

And so empathy is inevitably subject to some level of internal discrimination.

Maybe.

The New GOD hasn't yet been created.

So maybe a woman in a truck is irrelevant.

As would be references to the Old GOD that perished billions of years ago.

Maybe.

@RatMan

Perceivable difference is it's own self perpetuating racist propaganda.

GOD if you will

The accumulation of all knowledge.

Waiting on the edge of the abyss.

As all matter collapsed into the void.

Certain of it's own sacrifice.

Confident of the resurrection.

And the perpetuation of the sequence.

Right on Doc.

Quite honestly he is very entertaining.

One takes such rhetoric as seriously as one want's to.

And some people like to take it far more seriously than others do..... I would suggest that effectual sensitivity, is their problem, and not Wylted's.

Power corrupts.

So what's new?

Marriage?

An excuse for a knees up and a thick head I suppose.

Nope. Believe is an ambiguous word.

Because, one does not need to believe in certainty.

One  believes in an uncertainty, which by definition lacks proof.

So I am not prepared to believe in anything.

Does the door revolve clockwise or counter clockwise.

Or is it prone to sporadic changes of directional rotation.

And if the FDA is ran by big pharma, is the door manual or does it utilise sensory electronics.

No but it would be a good reason for her to accuse him of being a paedophile.

Done.

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.