Disobedience has consequences.

[bhsmte]

You put that behavior on the same level as someone who kidnaps girls and keeps them captive for years? You can't be serious.

And what about vegetarians and plants? I can't wait to hear that one.

 

[oi_antz]

I have to tell you, I have a hard time making much sense of many of your posts. They seem to be "out there" and don't make a lot of sense to me.

Can you reword that?

Ok.

Some guys like girls. They find girls attractive and they are comfortable about that.
Some guys look like girls, they have a similar size and appearance, whathaveyou. They even might make efforts to look like girls (it happens more often that girls like to look like boys).
Some guys who are comfortable with their being attracted to girls will find that they are attracted to a feminine looking guy. Once they find out it is a guy, they are not so attracted. Interesting if they have already been making moves!

What do you make of that?

 

[LostMarbels]

How is attraction choice?

Even in homosexuality there is role play of man, and women. Someone still plays the opposite role even tho both are of the same sex. How often do you see feminine women with feminine women, or manly men with manly men? Why act like, and be attracted to the same sex acting as if they are the opposite sex?

Do you think people one day just choose to be heterosexual or homosexual?

To some extent I do believe it is personal choice. I think this is how the identify themselves sexually and how they chose to communicate their sexuality.

 

[oi_antz]

You put that behavior on the same level as someone who kidnaps girls and keeps them captive for years? You can't be serious.

Not on the same level, but I am asking you why the behaviour is seen to be different from that psychological perspective you have mentioned. Why are they in a different bracket?

The behaviour is the same, that you described word-for-word:

"one who is unable to see how his actions impact other people (a sociopath) and is able to convince himself, it is ok. He was feeding a selfish need, that needed to disregard normal amounts of empathy for others."

.. Considering that animals are people (they are), a person is able to convince themselves that it is ok to eat meat produced in a way that causes distress and suffering for the animals.

Your words describe a "normal" person by today's social standards in this sense, yet when we draw that same line to the person who does this to humans, it is not "normal".

And what about vegetarians and plants? I can't wait to hear that one.

This is the same thing, based on a necessary shifting of definition of "normal empathy", in order to make "normal" socially acceptable to everyone who likes to eat plants (I do).

 

[LostMarbels]

You put that behavior on the same level as someone who kidnaps girls and keeps them captive for years? You can't be serious.

I want it duly noted that a deviant is a deviant. Regardless of sexuality.

 

[oi_antz]

I want it duly noted that a deviant is a deviant. Regardless of sexuality.

But, at what point is it right and wrong to define deviation? Does majority opinion really define that? I reckon that it doesn't. Slavery and racism is a prominent example of this.

 

[LostMarbels]

But, at what point is it right and wrong to define deviation? Does majority opinion really define that? I reckon that it doesn't. Slavery and racism is a prominent example of this.

Unfortunately without a absolute authoritative set of morals, morality becomes subjective, and conditioned by cultural and/or historical stratification of a said society. While one group of peoples may accept a social norm, another set of individuals could find that "norm" reprehensible. We see this for example in ancient Greece in the form of pederasty. Where prepubescent boys engaged in sexual acts with older men. Ancient Greece not only encouraged pederasty, they institutionalized it. They considered it as a way for men to instill virtue in young boys. Although the sexual side of the relationship was the most infamous part of it, it was also a spiritual relationship as well. Young girls were not regularly molested, because that would destroy her virtue which was to remain intact until she was given in marriage. But a salve is a slave and it did happen with non-citizens.

To us this is disgusting. There are nations on this earth that will give away children as young as 8 into marriage. So as I said, without an iron clad set of morality anything can be deemed permissible.

 

[oi_antz]

Unfortunately without a absolute authoritative set of morals, morality becomes subjective, and conditioned by cultural and/or historical stratification of a said society. While one group of peoples may accept a social norm, another set of individuals could find that "norm" reprehensible. We see this for example in ancient Greece in the form of pederasty. Where prepubescent boys engaged in sexual acts with older men. Ancient Greece not only encouraged pederasty, they institutionalized it. They considered it as a way for men to instill virtue in young boys. Although the sexual side of the relationship was the most infamous part of it, it was also a spiritual relationship as well. Young girls were not regularly molested, because that would destroy her virtue which was to remain intact until she was given in marriage. But a salve is a slave and it did happen with non-citizens.

To us this is disgusting. There are nations on this earth that will give away children as young as 8 into marriage. So as I said, without an iron clad set of morality anything can be deemed permissible.

What do you think is the point of honouring a social norm then, since it has been demonstrated to sometimes not be right?

 

[bhsmte]

Even in homosexuality there is role play of man, and women. Someone still plays the opposite role even tho both are of the same sex. How often do you see feminine women with feminine women, or manly men with manly men? Why act like, and be attracted to the same sex acting as if they are the opposite sex?

To some extent I do believe it is personal choice. I think this is how the identify themselves sexually and how they chose to communicate their sexuality.

Let me ask you this:

With the social disdain of being a homosexual, why would someone choose to be one?

 

[bhsmte]

Not on the same level, but I am asking you why the behaviour is seen to be different from that psychological perspective you have mentioned. Why are they in a different bracket?

The behaviour is the same, that you described word-for-word:

"one who is unable to see how his actions impact other people (a sociopath) and is able to convince himself, it is ok. He was feeding a selfish need, that needed to disregard normal amounts of empathy for others."

.. Considering that animals are people (they are), a person is able to convince themselves that it is ok to eat meat produced in a way that causes distress and suffering for the animals.

Your words describe a "normal" person by today's social standards in this sense, yet when we draw that same line to the person who does this to humans, it is not "normal".



This is the same thing, based on a necessary shifting of definition of "normal empathy", in order to make "normal" socially acceptable to everyone who likes to eat plants (I do).

As I already mentioned to you, your posts seem "out there" to me.

After seeing you state; "animals are people", I will back away from this one.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok.

Some guys like girls. They find girls attractive and they are comfortable about that.
Some guys look like girls, they have a similar size and appearance, whathaveyou. They even might make efforts to look like girls (it happens more often that girls like to look like boys).
Some guys who are comfortable with their being attracted to girls will find that they are attracted to a feminine looking guy. Once they find out it is a guy, they are not so attracted. Interesting if they have already been making moves!

What do you make of that?

Pure sexual attraction, is based on physical features that one is attracted to.

The vast majority of men and women have very easy to determine physical features, that are different.

 

[LostMarbels]

Let me ask you this:

With the social disdain of being a homosexual, why would someone choose to be one?

Why do people chose to kill someone even tho you could be executed. Because the threat still isn't good enough to deter a behavior. If someone wants to, or refuse to do an action; they can do so even at the threat of death. Even choosing to die to commit such action.

 

[bhsmte]

Why do people chose to kill someone even tho you could be executed. Because the threat still isn't good enough to deter a behavior. If someone wants to, or refuse to do an action; they can do so even at the threat of death. Even choosing to die to commit such action.

Because they likely have serious psychological problems.

Do you think all homosexuals have serious psychological problems?

 

[LostMarbels]

Because they likely have serious psychological problems.

Do you think all homosexuals have serious psychological problems?

No, I think you are trying to make me defend a point I did not make. My point is disdain, not even threat of death is a good enough motivator to keep some from making a decision.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I think you are trying to make me defend a point I did not make. My point is disdain, not even threat of death is a good enough motivator to keep some from making a decision.

That is because abnormal psychology allows stronger motivations that overwhelm the potential consequences.

 

[oi_antz]

Pure sexual attraction, is based on physical features that one is attracted to.

The vast majority of men and women have very easy to determine physical features, that are different.

I accept this. But if a man is attracted to another man due to that man's physical features, what difference does it make that the one he is attracted to is male or female? (I am asking what you make of that - as I see it is a belief that is dictating this person's desire rather than physical attraction at that point).

 

[oi_antz]

Why do people chose to kill someone even tho you could be executed. Because the threat still isn't good enough to deter a behavior. If someone wants to, or refuse to do an action; they can do so even at the threat of death. Even choosing to die to commit such action.

Do you know of a real example? This sounds like a Mexican Standoff, is that what you mean? Or are you describing someone taking a risk on the hope that they will not get caught?

 

[bhsmte]

I accept this. But if a man is attracted to another man due to that man's physical features, what difference does it make that the one he is attracted to is male or female? (I am asking what you make of that - as I see it is a belief that is dictating this person's desire rather than physical attraction at that point).

There may be initial attraction based on early observations of another person of the same sex. Some men can dress as women and on first glance, look very attractive. But, when a heterosexual discovers the person is a male, they have no desire to take it beyond that, because they are not homosexual.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no idea why God allows these deaths to happen, but I know that he is not the only one. We all allow it, one way or another. What is your reason?

This is not heaven.
God's highest priority is not keeping us suffering here.

 

[SkyWriting]

We have moved a long way beyond nature. If we wanted to eradicate poverty and perhaps nine tenths of disease we could easily do it. We just choose not to.

How are you eliminating poverty? I've got plans and am working on it, but what are yours?