Dark Moth

'Aren't easy to use'? Just how difficult is it to use one? My iPod so far is working just fine. I am bitter, though. About a month after I get my 2G iPod Nano, Apple comes out with the new line of iPods with all the fancy new features. <_< It's a cruel world.

Gabrielle ^

Aargh! *vader voice* That name no longer has any meaning for me!

Well, they're not 'changing' their orientation in this case, they're merely repressing their actions. They could still feel sexual desire for girls but just choose not to act on them. It's not exactly the same thing. If you had read just a little further, you would have seen this: Also, to clarify for you and kirottu, my point to alanschu is not that hanging around gay people makes you gay, I've already said that. Rather, Alanschu seems to think that it's impossible for someone's sexual orientation to be influenced by hanging around enough people of homosexual orientation for so long, and I disagreed. Would it make them gay? Probably not. But I don't think it's correct to say it can't.

Are you finally admitting you're Hades? Anyway, I base my belief on faith, reason and logic. By the way, faith and belief do not always defy reason and logic. But I'm not going to discuss this now. This is not a religious thread.

Wow. Even after all I've said you still think I've implied that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. Never did I say that. Read my posts more carefully next time. Also, I did take a good look at that site. For the record, of course most sexual abuse won't be done by homosexuals. Why do you think that is, Alan? Think about it. 1. You're the one making a logical fallacy. Environmental, my friend, means environmental, which is what I meant. The type of people you hang around is an environmental factor. Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying is actually supporting my statements. I suggest you think a little more before posting. 2. See, there you go again assuming you everything that goes on in these people's minds. The utter arrogance you show here by assuming that they do this only for the reasons you stated is just wrong. You don't know, so don't act like it. What you're doing right now is taking these examples and just spouting what you believe is the reason behind it and using to somehow counter my statements. Why does it seem so impossible to you that those urges can't go away completely? Even more, the fact that they can actually repress their homosexual urges pretty much proves that a person can have influence over their sexual orientation, does it not? 3. Once again, environmental influence. Take an adult or even a teenager and force them to hang around gay people all the time probably won't change his or her sexual orientation. Take someone really young though who is already supposedly heterosexual and do the same, you definitely would influence him or her. Would it make them automatically homosexual? We can't say. But I think it's rather arrogant of you to say it can't, especially since it defies logic. Whether it does or doesn't is really not your concern. Unless you can't actually provide good counters against my reasoning, don't even bother bringing religion into it. A Catholic priest is not a pedophile or a homosexual by definition. A Catholic priest can be a homosexual or a pedophile, but not because he is a Catholic priest. A homosexual though is a homosexual by definition. That's why you're example is weak and a bad one at that. Never did, never implied it. You'd like me to have, otherwise that might give you more credibility here. 1. Well well, so you don't think it's right or wrong. Fine! But if that's your opinion, don't think you can judge me by my character just because I think homosexuality is wrong. Now you're the one pointing fingers here. And as I said to meta, don't go for the whole 'it's natural' argument, because that too is a weak one at best. It's weak for supporting homosexuality, and even weaker for trying to argue against someone who thinks it's wrong. It's natural for some animals to eat their young and show cannibalism, too. 2. Once again, you're ascribing motives. Whether or not you think it's wrong, fine. But if you do think boy scouts are wrong, then all my afformentioned organizations are wrong too, because they all discriminate and many often try to influence their members' opinions about others to suit their agendas. Whether or not they get public dollars is something we've already been over, but both groups can be guilty of the same thing. 1. Well, now we're going back to the religious argument. If you think their behavior is wrong, fine. There's nothing I can say to change you're opinion on that, so I won't bother. 2. It's one thing to say something about an organization, it's another to say it about it's members. I can't speak for the organization, but I've had my encounters with it in the past, and I have friends who either were part of or are still in the boy scouts, and none of them are racist. So please cut it with the racial accusations. 3. No, don't go! We love you! But seriously, sorry to hear that. We might be arguing now, but I like you as a person. But if you really want to leave, best of luck to you. Anyways, it probably would have been better to end this chat anyway, especially give this thread has been OT since the first page.

Holy crap - it's Launch! I'm a little divided on this issue. A person should be able to conform to a company's standards if they want to work there. However, I think companies should be considerate to the needs of their employees. Did the article ever state why they weren't allowed? Is it because the articles go against company dress policy (i.e. they don't allow jewelry), or because they just don't allow the display of religious symbols.

I was listening to Dark Side of the Moon recently, and just out of boredom I watched some scenes in Wizard of Oz along with the tracks. Has anyone else ever tried this? There are also clips of these scenes on YouTube for those curious to see what this is about. Personally, I don't think it parallels the movie as much as some people say it does. In fact, there are many parts where they don't really match up at all. Although there were some instances that made me go "woah!", like how "The Great Gig in the Sky" is almost exactly as long as the tornado scene and mirrors it in a couple parts. In retrospect though, I would say it's good watching just for the sheer fun of it, or if you're bored. All in all though, a great album. All the songs are good, though I'd say "The Great Gig in the Sky", "Money", and "Us and Them" are among my favorites off the CD.

Alright, fine. I'm in agreement with you there. A private organization should not get so much public funding and expect to do whatever they want. I did not imply that by agreeing with their decision. Yeah, I'm well aware that sexual abuse is not restricted to homosexual men (prison cells, anyone?) but you can't ignore the fact that someone would be at greater risk being abused by a homosexual predator than a heterosexual predator if they were of the same sex. And as I already said, there have been cases of abuse like this already. What do you propose they do about that? I'm curious. Nurture is something that is brought about by environmental influence. If it's not all biological, then you've already admitted that there are environmental factors involved, which already negates your claim that hanging around gay people can't make you gay. It's a commonly know fact in biology and sociology that group behavior can influence individual behavior. So homosexuality is no exception. 'Woefully misinformed'. That's a laugh. How can I be misinformed if there are actual documented cases of people switching their sexual preferences? You seem to be the one misinformed, if you think that hanging around gay people can't influence a person. It can. That doesn't mean it always will happen, but it can. I've already made my reasoning clear on this. You'll notice I also not once mentioned any religious reason for my views on this matter. Not once did I say that it's wrong because 'the Bible says so'. Your example of the Catholic priest doesn't hold weight here, either. Because a Catholic Priest first of all is someone who follows a belief that first of all does not encourage homosexuality and especially not pedophilia. A homosexual however is a different matter, because this is someone who has a set sexual preference whether it's hereditary or environmentaly influenced. My reasoning in no way supports what you just said. Maybe if I were actually being a hypocrite, you'd be right, but I'm not. You see, if I were a bigot, that would mean I would be judging homosexuals as people just on their sexual preference. But I'm not. I've already made that point abundantly clear. You seem to be ignoring many of the things I said in response to meta's post. If I think homosexuality is wrong, so what? You yourself most likely have defined for yourself what kind of behavior you consider wrong, haven't you? I can think homosexuality is wrong yet still think a homosexual can be a good person, whether you think so or not. Now I want to ask you a question. Why do you think homosexuality is right? Also, what are your views on the organizations I already mentioned before - those that discriminate already based on biology or belief? Answer me that. Also, you're now ascribing motives to the Boy Scouts based on what you think. You and I seem to think they are doing what they do for different reasons. Alright, fine. But I think it's a stretch for you to say they ban them simply because they are right-wing and religous. They have more reasons than that, as I've already stated and made clear. You're also now making the mistake of generalizing them by saying that many are racist. You don't know that, so don't say that. Heck, you don't even live in the U.S.! I was never affiliated with the boy scouts, so I can't speak for their organization. But to clarify, I think you're right that if they recieve so much public funding, then they should not be able to anything they want with taxpayer dollars. You and I seem to be looking at this each as a different issue. So at this point, they should probably become more inclusive if they want to continue operating. If they were more private, then it'd be a different matter.

Not really. There is ample evidence to show that homosexuality can be just as much nature as it is nurture. IMO, it's both. But either way, it brings problems. If it's a choice, then it's justified. If it's biolical, even that doesn't erase all problems. Many people are born predisposed toward a certain type of behavior that society might find wrong, but at the same time, it's hereditary. You could easily call that discrimination as well. So why is this different? Even if it's just biological, we are human beings. We have minds. We can choose whether or not to go by our primal instincts or not. We can choose whether or not to act the way we are born to be. That's what set our species apart from animals in the first place. So just because something is biolocial does not make it right. My point is do not argue just on the basis that it is biological. Also, a problem here is that in both our societies there is already a lot of discrimination based on biology and lifestyle. For example, any special group based purely on race, such as a black student's union or a women's union. That's discrimination, isn't it? And you have it based on lifestyle, such as any religious group, or any political club or oganization based on one's political views. That's discrimination. So, why does this make the Scouts any different? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the scouts doing what they do is wrong, then that makes everything above wrong. Why does their discrimination automatically equal wrong in your eyes why many others see the above examples of okay? Help me out here. I never said that. I agree with you that homosexuality does not equal pederasty. See my post to Alanschu regarding this also. No. Even if I did, they have a right to do what they want with their organization. I don't just base my views on my 'fundamental' religious beliefs. I base it on a lot of things. Including logic and reasoning. Regarding you second point, yes, homosexuality can be a choice. It has happened before, and I believe it can influence others. To say that it can't influence others IMO is just wrong. For the record, I don't judge the content of a person's character by their sexual preference, race, religion, or political views. I judge it by their actions. I don't think the Boy Scouts are doing that here, either. Their are plenty of heterosexuals out there who are terrible persons, and plenty of homosexuals who are great persons, and vice-versa. I see this more as a precautionary measure than anything else.

Stop pretending. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For real. And don't think I didn't see what you wrote before you edited your post, Hades. If you don't want to drop your bigotry until you think all Christians drop theirs, fine. But don't think that behavior will get you very far. And honestly, what are you trying to pull? This little alt game you have going isn't garnering you any respect. It was bad enough seeing you try to switch to the bunny alt, now you're doing this? And to top it off, you still insist on pretending you're not who we all know you are? You really are a riot sometimes. So I'll merely say what I said to you last time - Until you stop this pathetic little act of yours, and grow up along with it, we don't have anything to say to each other. Have a nice life, Hades. Even if they get public dollars, they are still a private organization. If you have a problem with them getting public money, fine. But that doesn't change it. Yes, I do hate that. But you'll notice I never said or implied that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles. I'm well aware that the vast majority of them are people who prefer their own age group. But there are those out there who do do these sorts of things. It's happened before, homosexuals abusing boys through Boy Scouts or other organizations. There have been numerous cases of homosexuals joining boy scouts or becoming Catholic priests in order to prey on young boys. No, that does not mean homosexuals are also pedophiles. But this is a very serious issue, and the Boy Scouts prefer to not have to take that risk, or at least minimize it as much as possible. So if they choose to do what they do, then that's their decision.

Voice of experience, Hades? But with all due respect, perhaps you should try to sort out your own bigotry before pointing fingers at others. Not that it matters to you, of course. As long as it makes you right, that makes it right. Using that logic they should prevent evil using the demonstrably overwelmingly predictive trait of all hardenened criminals (i.e. above 98%): masculinity. Just throw every man in jail: no more serious crime. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Within reason, meta. That's not a logical comparison. What you're saying for one thing is discrimination based on sex and one's biological traits, not on someone's choice of lifestyle, and it's something that's on a ridiculously large scale to boot. What boy scouts are doing is merely a precautionary measure, and an understandable one. With the cases of scout masters abusing boys in the past, why are you surprised that they'd take measures such as this? The parents' feelings on whether or not a homosexual should be teaching their children is their own affair, but the scouts choose not to take that risk. Also, the boy scouts are a private organization, not a public one. Even if they are doing what you think is discrimination, they have a right to do it. That does not make it bigotry. It's no different or worse than white people not being allowed to join a black union. So to be blunt, yes I am in agreement of what they do. To everyone out there, go ahead, call me a bigot. But it will not change my views on the matter.

Two things: 1) Shut up, Hades. 2) H.G. Wells was a brilliant author. He had great ideas and was good at writing them down. He also accurately visualized many aspecs of war that would come in the future, such as an Air Force and chemical warfare. As for this, I think the only chance of humanity dividing itself into two would be as he visualized - some cataclysmic disaster that forces humans to adapt. BTW Raven, you should really read WotW. Very good book, and better than the movie.

Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This wouldn't make a big difference anyway, since physical attraction would still be relative. A good-looking guy now could be but a decent-looking guy then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, true. Though having a bigger tool to work with will always be a good thing in my eyes. But seriously, I think this guy raises a couple interesting points here and there, but mostly the article's bullcrap in my humble opinion. This reminds me of a documentary on the Discover Channel I watched on the future earth, in which the scientists who put it together believed squids would be one of the dominant species on earth eventually. It just seems to me the human race is too diverse and interactive for a species split to even happen. Maybe for animals it would happen, but not for the human race. Even the whole 'coffe-colored skin' concept seems a little unrealistic.

I noticed that too. Seems to be an unwritten rule or something. At least that makes them easy to recognize.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm According to this article, one evolutionist believes the human species will evolve into two distinctly separate races, one 'upperclass' and one 'lowerclass', much like the Eloi and Morlocks in The Time Machine. Some bad things: But some good things as well: Personally, I'm tempted to shrug this off as just another theory, but it's interesting still...

The 'blame God' tactic. LOL. You and Hades shook hook up sometime. But seriously, you think that we should just get up and leave Iraq? Why? I'm curious. How do you think that will help the situation over there.

That I agree with, Hades.

Please spare me your patronizing and your ad nauseum use of emoticons. I don't need you giving me advice or frowning on me because you think I'm in an 'us vs them' mentality. You'll also note I never said that Muslims and Arabs as a whole are our enemies. So don't try to put words in my mouth. I read about what happens overseas. I read about what we do and what they do, and I look at past events as well as future events. And I know enough to know who the 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are in this situation. So please take your self-righteous attitude and put it where the sun doesn't shine. I call it like I see it, and in almost all topics dealing with issues like this, you have repeatedly and rather blatantly seemed to make the west look like the ones at fault for everything that's going wrong in the ME while ignoring the wrongs committed by our enemies. The bias you show is almost laughable. I figured you could use a little perspective on the situation before you go pointing fingers. After all, the truth is out there, right? Thought you might like some for yourself.

Heh. Take a look at this. North and South Korea at night. Yes, the lines are photoshopped in so you can see which country's which.

The issue is not about one evil deed justifying another. This is about the way you seem to blatantly ignore the atrocities committed by our enemies and repeatedly make the west and Christians look like the clear-cut bad guys in this situation. Thought you might like to see things from the other perspective.

A little Iraq update here - Iraq's Christian minorities are starting to abandon the country due to the worsening extremist threat. This comes partly in response to the Pope's comments regarding Islam, when he called the religion things such as 'evil and inhuman'. In response, Oh, the irony! Well, the people who do these things in the ME so far aren't doing themselves any favors by doing this. Responding violently to a Pope's comments and taking it out on worshippers is not a good way to change anyone's opinion or get them to respect your religion. Hmm...maybe this should go in the 'crisis' thread. Colrom, remember this the next time you want to demonize the west for bullying the poor defenseless Muslims in the ME.

there's a good idea. vote democrat (or republican for that matter) simply because you're "mad at the other side." why not vote for the best guy, regardless of affiliation? i must say it is disappointing that the "best guy" was actually the lesser of two evils in both of the last two elections. in the end, it doesn't matter what party a candidate represents. people that strive to lead the country (at just about any elected level), are the types normal folks normally would not care to associate with. it takes a certain personality to do these things, one i'm not particularly comfortable with. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That might make sense, but you see, with Hades anything Republican = bad, regardless of the person they are. In most cases, we would call that attitude bigotry. Yet another reason why putting him on my ignore list was a smart decision.

That is so my next sig!