dk

dk: The Population Bomb was a book written in 1968 by biologist Paul Ehrlich. His dismal forecast turned out to be grossly out of line with reality. Like most fundamental extremists Ehrlich’s doctrines are muted by history, but still religiously advocated.
. . Malthus an influential 19 Century economist first postulated that the “means of production” increased arithmetically while population increased geometrically, hence would culminate in poverty and distress culling human population with poverty and distress. All of Malthus’ forecasts have been proven wrong. Nobody has been able to calculate the carrying capacity of the earth because the logistics, productivity, utility, innovations and creativity of humankind keeps moving the bar. Clearly the means of production outpaced human population through the 2nd Millennium, though the 20th Century was the bloodiest 100 years in history. Current estimates of the Earth’s carrying capacity runs from 30 to a 100 billion people. Clearly overpopulation is less a threat to the earth than SUVs and fossil fuels. The threat to humankind is social discord leading to Nuclear, Biological & Chemical War; not overpopulation. War is the threat to the Earth; not overpopulation. It seems increasingly plausible the psychology of overpopulation creates human mindset that poses a direct threat to the earth. I’m simply pointing out that the mindset, not overpopulation, poses the threat.
In so far as history has shown, the RC has caused nothing but sorrow, death, destruction, bigotry, intolerance, ignorance & countless other forms of atrocities all across the world.
The pope has been apologizing for these "misdeeds" but can it really undo the harm that the RC had brought to the world ? & when can the RC really finish apologizing for all these "misdeeds" it has done ? [/quote]
Seems to me the Catholic Church brought Western Europe out of the Dark Ages into the Middle Ages to make the Renascences possible. Total Warfare was invented by Enlightened Despots making modern warfare possible. Enlightened Despots, Communists and Fascists based their orders on the rational philosophy (positive laws) touted by Comte’s positivism, Marx’s socialism, Nietzsche’s superman and Spencer’s evolutionism. The Catholic Church from Augustine has opposed Radical Rationalism because it dictates all human knowledge originates from sensory input. Blaming the RC for modernity is like blaming water for human thirst.

dk

Most public schools teach sex is a normative beneficial experience for healthy teenagers. Many public schools teach and protect their students liberty to have sex with whomever they please. If it wasn't healthy for students to have sex with whomever they pleased then public schools wouldn't hand out birth control and condoms to students, and many do. Do you disagree?

ju'iblex

dk

first point of order, your paraphrasing.
point 1: this one is ok enough for me to leave it.
point 2: i'll leave it.
point 3: you said you were taking some liberty, but to use the word "believe" instead of my, "brought up by". notice the complete difference in meaning. BUT, i will give you the benefit of the doubt and just let it be that you read it wrong.

"...and that your parent’s values and authority is unreliable."

wrong. for you a different sexual orientation seems to be about authority, and the need to rebel it. this leads me to believe you have no concept of homosexuality. you seem to believe that human relationships outside of your bell curve are based on no more other than the superficial. which is where you are wrong, despite what you believe it is possible for two people of the same sex to share the same feelings of love and affection for each other. just because we dont "bear fruit", (to use your analogy) doesnt mean there is no love.

AND, if we must get into an argument about my parents, perhaps we should also take into account the fact that:
a) i DO love my parents. i have no desire or need to rebel against them. they have been there for me whenever ive needed them and have provided me with a loving environment etc.
BUT
b)despite the fact we have a great relationship as yet, i have to still face the inevitable of telling them about my sexual orientation. and unfortunately, my parents arent exactly the most progressive sort, so unfortunately for me, i, when i tell them (cant hide it forever) i will have to face the pain and suffering of being disowned. literally. they made it quite clear at a young age, that if i turned out gay, i would NOT be accepted as part of the family. which, i imagine is yet another concept you will probably never know.
so i really dont think its appropriate for you to tell me about my own parents.
wrong again. i learnt that it was natural for two people who love each other to have sex. married or not. i was also taught it is not healthy (ie. consequences) to be promiscuous and dangerous in how you have sex. (eg. no protection.)
personally, what i took away from it all is you should have enough respect for a partner to be faithful. which is a rule i choose to honour.
wrong again. i have no idea where youre coming up with such BS. and perhaps i should be telling YOU what i learnt rather than the other way round?

im interested, you are continuously harping on this "fact" that homosexual relationships equate to promiscuity. where does that come from? imposing such a massive generalisation on a number of INDIVIDUALS, each with their own different personalities, perspectives and opinions, is not only wrong (in any sense of the word) but reeks of ignorance.

so homosexuality is nurture not nature. (according to thou) where is your evidence for this? considering the fact most advertising is aimed at heterosexuals (or those not deviating from "normal" as you would put it) im not sure how this would "turn" me. your main argument here appears to be about promiscuity, which you alone equate with homosexuality. focus on the task at hand here. arent you supposed to be talking about the school system and how that was responsible for my orientation?

you would describe them by their individual conduct and character etc. etc.?

i would say you have proved other wise in the rest of your argument. considering your massive generalisation on homo. = promisc.

you personally wouldnt say they are normal? certainly stastically they dont fit into the majority. but something tells me instead of normal here you are thinking more along the lines of natural, in which case that is something that can be argued. besides, just because you're a minority doesnt somehow mean that you should be ignored and not acknowledged.

they are lying to their students??? Whoa! i dont think so!!! they are teaching understanding and acknowledgement of those who may or may not have a different opinion than themselves. perhaps we should all be teaching female children they are the beginners of life and serve only as breeding chambers as your Catholic system would put it! Perhaps a new curriculum should be set out: There is only one true way of life and that is the family unit. all differentiations are not natural. thats the message that is coming across here.

kctan

Quote from dk,
So who are you trying to fool here ? The RC brought europe into the dark ages & its the calls for reforms from people like Martin Luther & such which let that old monster realise that its days of holding power are over.

Trying to change, too tied down by its dogmas & stigmas, it never really changed enough to keep up with the changing pace of the world & thus becomes an obsolete monster at the verge of death, prolonging its live by ensnaring those of the 3rd worlds who are still ignorance to its death throes & its true hiddeousness disguised in the clothes of aid bringing missionaries.

Don't try to twist history. Its plain to all who knew its path just what role the RC plays in the making of Europe as it is now.

The population bomb is not a myth just like the truth of global warming. Its there but people like you chose to ignore it. Science is playing its role to try & keep up with it but the hyprocrisy shown by religious bigots such as you are holding them back & making the problem more likely to burst rather then be contained.

I despise you & your RCC, a truly hiddeous monster who claims to be followers of god yet shows the morality of a nest of vipers.

Monkeybot

I can agree with that. I suppose my line of thinking is that the most important goal of sex education is to prevent pregnancies (well, unwanted ones, anyway) and to reduce the number of STDs. That is, take care of the physical aspect of things before the psychological one.

That's about the absolute minimum that should be taught, in my not-so-humble opinion. Of course, if I had my way, there would certainly be a lot more.

I don't even remember when I started masturbating, it was that young. Like you, I also thought it was vaguely wrong, but couldn't exactly pinpoint why. I've since grown out of that line of thought, though.

That does pose an interesting question, though. What if I had died when I was six or seven years old? would I have gone to hell for masturbation?

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>

dk

dk: I’m very curious about this. “Belief” evokes an assumption of trust. You said, “i would have been brought up by my parents as a very sexually repressed, dysfunctional little girl.” It seems to me you’re saying you were brought up by a school, not your parents. I distinguish between informal and formal education, informal inferring parental “up bringing” verses formal meaning structured in a classroom. In the best of worlds one’s formal and informal education complement one another, but when they overlap the conflict is disruptive to home and school. Unfortunately this puts the child in the awkward position of picking who to trust, often setting the parents and school against one another. Clearly it wasn’t the intent of your parents to raise a dysfunctional sexually repressed little girl, nor was it the intent of the school to undermine parental trust and authority. Why did you trust the school and distrust you’re parents, as a little girl with no knowledge of sex?
dk: You’re wrong to assume anything about my beliefs, and I haven’t stated them. I simply said using the term “normal” to describe such a small percentage of the general population is misleading. There are a couple of issues here. 1) What is the causal relationship between nature and nurture in sexual orientation. 2) Does the general distribution of sexual orientation across the human spectrum fit a Normal Distribution. These are both controversial issues with no ready answer.
dk: I have great empathy for your situation, clearly the values public school instilled offer little or no comfort to your family. Do you believe your parents are victims of -1- culture or -2- lies –3- betrayal? And why?.
dk: My only advice is don’t play the blame game with your parents. If you can avoid the blame game then honor and love have an even chance.
dk: I’m simply regurgitating what you said: “because if they (public schools) hadn’t told me that, I would have been brought up by my parents to be a very sexually repressed and dysfunctional girl”. Clearly the school brought you up to justly disobeys your parents, but notice the school sheds no tears for your family.
dk: I don’t believe I was explicit, but public schools teach students they have the liberty to engage in sexual relationships with whomever they want, including promiscuous or homosexual relationships. My statement is implicit WITH YOURS.
dk: I think homosexuality is both nature and nurture. I think its evident people are born on the a spectrum of sexual orientation. I submit bisexuals, homosexual activities in prisons and the role reversals evident in many homosexual relationships as evidence.
i would say you have proved other wise in the rest of your argument. considering your massive generalisation on homo. = promisc.
dk: When you direct a question at me, then answer it for me, you demonstrate a personal bias. I find the Gay and Lesbian cultures to be separate and distinct.
dk: Morality ORDERS CONDUCT not sexual orientation. For example morality doesn’t excuse a person born with a bad temper punching someone because they are angry.
dk: You’re the one that implied your school raised you. Perhaps you mean the school justified the lies you told your parents growing up. When schools covertly undermine parental authority they lie, but it’s called a betrayal of the public trust. Be real, no parent would support a school to undermine their authority to put a kid at risk. In the United States about 25% of the kids are schooled at home (5%) or in parochial schools (20%) for precisely this reason. Tuition for a parochial schools is a minimum of $2,000/ year. The reason parents avoid a free public education is simple, they don’t trust public schools with their kids.

ju'iblex

ju'iblex

all i meant by that sentence was what my parents were telling me, that is a)its unnatural to be gay, b)its disgusting and vile to be gay, and all that other jazz, was contradicting something i felt a lot deeper inside. i was not brought up by the school, i was brought up by my parents, and from them i took away a number of values, etc. of which i was free to choose which ones i believed. which also applies to lessons at school, to a far lesser extent.

it wasnt about trusting the school, it was about trusting my own feelings on the matter, which, if all info. on the topic was given to me by solely my parents, would have left me with the equation:

feelings like this towards another woman = unnatural, dirty, however you want to phrase it.

thus, my feelings and myself = dirty, unnatural, etc.

which, as you might agree would have not made for a well person.

im tempted to say culture. considering especially how stupid i'd sound if i chose the other two. lets start with the catholic church, considering they dominated Western Europe for the longest time. (that matters).
they imposed many outlines of how to live, including the persecution of those who did not fit. the values made by the catholic church centuries ago are pretty much the basis for Western beliefs today. those included obviously homosexuality, and the hatred of it. unfortunately, this is one of the reasons for bigotry today, and also for my families bigotry. although my mother is an agnostic, this is a value she chose from my fascist anglican grandparents, and so thats where it comes from. culture is probably right. im disturbed by the word "victims" however, i think thats a very extreme word to use.

firstly, i have no want nor need for your advice. secondly, im not playing the blame game, im simply stating their beliefs as they have told me, and my reaction and response to those. i do not blame them for despising homosexuality, i merely think it is sad they cannot accept another human being because of their sexuality, especially their own daughter. or "fruit of their love" as you would say.

bisexuals, people who can find beauty in both the sexes, im not sure how that is solely the product of nurture. homosexual activities in prison are about power and humiliation, not the products of values. perhaps the actual role reversal is nurture, but not the relationship itself.

actually the statement i answered was a direct quote of yours, so in effect i was looking at a point of yours, but this is a pointless argument, and one that really doesnt illuminate the topic, so lets leave it.

i implied no such thing. perhaps i didnt phrase my story well enough for you, and im sorry it needed clarification. no, really, im really really sorry i had to bother clarifying it for you.

and, just another point here, i have NEVER EVER lied to absolutely anyone about my sexuality when confronted with the question. i may have made some fancy moves to avoid having to answer it, but i have never said anything to anyone which would give the direct impression i was not gay. i have simply been careful with my choice of words. and, i have no need for my school to justify any of my beliefs or opinions. that i can do on my own.

its not about undermining authority. and im not at risk. but parents also do not send their children to a school merely to have their own point of view enforced. if they want to do that, then they can home school their children. when a parent sends their child to a school, they are and should be aware they are likely to encounter different opinions and values of which the child is then free to choose. if not then they are probably very naive.

HelenM

*sigh*

So much for 'unconditional love'

love
Helen

99Percent

dk: Hey, I’m not usually this petty, I think you make a number of good points. But you start by saying “Normally in any other species”. No, in fact in all other species, except a few domesticated animals, sexual reproduction dominates life.

So you do agree. That is why I say "normally" because there are few exceptions like domesticated animal.

There are even a few species where the female kills and eats their mate. Adult salmon make a heroic kamikaze journey to reproduce then die. Birds, insects and many reptiles make stupendous migrations from one end of the globe to the other to mate. Territorial mammals engage in disputes that risks life threatening injury. Human beings are the only species that spend fast sums of resources and energy to deny their reproductive natures.

I completely agree with this statement. I guess were we disagree is that for humans, sex is not only for reproduction, but mainly for pleasure. For humans, reproduction is a secondary, even a mostly undesired, function of sex.

Catholicism teaches the Marital Act consummates the union of a man and woman as one, under God; and the family unit as the Domestic Church.

That is why Catholicism has such a hard time with the fact that sex could be use for any other purpose than for reproduction and condemns sex for pleasure only, as a sin.

If youth suicide, domestic violence, drug abuse, sexual dysfunction, mental illness, youth violence and STDs continue on their unchecked rampage they pose an eminent threat to civilization. I see no evidence that government bureaucrats have solved any of these problems, though they seem quite adapt at building vast empires full of corruption, pomp and hubris.

As a Libertarian I agree with what you are saying here. It is not the role of government to teach morals to children, or to teach anything in fact, not even sex. That is the role of the parents. That most parents are lazy to teach their children the facts of life is what is the root of those problems you mention (drug abuse, sexual dysfunction, etc). But religion makes an even worse "parent" because all their morals are based on the afterlife and not on objective reality based on a happier and healthier life - this life.

Really, this criteria sounds a might bogus to me. Lets see how it suits a rapist. The great pleasure a rapist gets from sex is an indicator of individual success

Actually, a rapist does not get his most pleasure from sex, but from the violent act of dominating another being against his will.