Forgive him lord, for he knows not what the hell he's talking about.
Most homosexuals do NOT have feelings of self-loathing. The ones that do can trace it back to religion and the predjudice of other people. Like you.

Ignorance is just your stock-in-trade, isn't it.

Then I must appologise as well. I saw your posts here and elsewhere and assumed that you were avoiding me.




For clarification, I believe that you consider knowledge as information gathered from the 5 senses (sight, sound, taste, touch and smell). This I also agree with.
When I said that I'd add intuition and instinct as sources of knowledge, I wasn't implying that they were sources of confirmed knowledge.
Case in point: You classify humans as animals, so an animal may be a good example to use as a human infant cannot comunicate it's knowledge, but the parallel is there and I hope that you can see where I'm coming from with the following examples.

A newborn horse within minutes of birth will attempt to stand on it's legs. Most newborn horses accomplish this without any outside stimulus to "teach" it this feat. The same can be said of it's feeding habits. Directed by smell, it "knows" where to find food.
As a newborn human does not have muscular coordination, standing isn't an option, but feeding is.

As for intuition, I cannot prove my theory, but if you've ever had a "hunch", you may understand where I'm coming from.
A hunch, feeling or intuition is not from outside stimulus, but from internal. Psychics (if you believe in them), would be a prime example.
While the initial knowledge is internal, external knowledge would confirm or refute said knowledge. I believe in psychic ability, but if you don't, it's not really a problem regarding this discussion.





I agree with you for the most part, but take this as an example:
A parent throws their child into the deep end of the pool. Instinct kicks in and the survival mechanism "informs" the child to swim to the surface. To me, this is obvious as 99.9% of all land animals can swim, without being taught.
Again, not a big deal if you don't agree.





That statement doesn't seem to me like it changed your original, it just seems like it expands the basic premise of individual perception. Again, I'm not contesting this one either.





Not much to "develope" here, but you may want to substitute my use of the word "facts" with "information". This would include all information, whether my own or from an outside source.



Now we get to the "meat" of our disagreement and this is what I have problem with. You assume that you have all the facts and that my statement is not "what is". You use your own perception to determine what is and what isn't without conceding the posibility that I may be correct in both my reality and yours.
Don't worry though, you're not alone. Quite a few individuals do this exact same thing.
You also did this with the Hitler discussion. You took your information and made the assessment that he was Christian. I never disputed his statements, only the lack of additional information and your assessment of said information. There was aproximately 15 years of "Hitler Youth" indoctrination that was required of all young males. That gave his regime a huge amount of males ages 14-30 all doing what they were told. Also absent was the biographies written by others and the visual proof of what he did.

Tricky Dicky claimed to be honest, did you believe him???






Again, this is the problem that I am having. Whatever you claim is "what is" is only your perception. Who gave you the authority to determine "what is"??? Does general concensus determine "what is"?

Hell, I remember back in the 70's being taught that Blue Whales were extinct. Our science books taught that their extinction was "what is". Carnegie museum had a Blue Whale replica and taught us the same thing. Guess what, they're not extinct, so even "general concensus" can be wrong.



This is where I strongly disagree. I don't contend the first issues at all. To me they are not the issue. I addressed those first issues out of respect and completeness. The issue to me is your assessment of the information and your determination that those "first issues" need to be addressed before moving on. To me, these are merely your opinions and it seems like you want to hold the "final authority" of "what is" and also what is pertinent.

So I'll state again, this time emphatically, that 11=3. Plus I'll also add that 11+3=2 and 11+3=6. Am I a nutjob, or might you concede that I could be right?

I didn't say most or all, I said some have. I know you are oppositional when it comes to me and you just have to disagree, but what I said was true and accurate.

Here is a video of a gay man talking about how he hated being different...
Joel Burns tells gay teens "it gets better"

I certainly hope that I have never inspired feelings of self-loathing, I try to be non-offensive. I certainly am not prejudiced against anyone.

If I wanted to debate with someone who just sits back and takes cheap shots I would start debating with the Junior high school debate club.You want to debate start acting like a adult.Your whining blah,blah,blah Thomas says this,Thomas is a moron,BS is totally useless to myself and anyone else here looking to have a civil debate.I've been insulted by people ten times the man you could ever be so don't think anything you can ever say is something I would take seriously.

"You even called me stupid in your verse, and I’m almost agreeing, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend."
-Franz Grillparzer

Read what the American College of Pediatricians has to say about the mental health of our youth.

http://www.acpeds.org/Search.html?ordering=&searchphrase=all&searchword=homosexuality


Article posted in the Mingle2 "Sports, Health and Fitness" ...forum.

oooo you so put me in my place. I'm so chagrined.


Why would I want another frustrating debate with someone who knows nothing about the subject, has no logic or reasoning skills, and is obviously a bigot? Among other unsavory things.

youth today are in a whole other CULTURAL climate matched with a changing family dynamic where its mostly an everyone for themself community AND household,,,,,,,what do we expect?

bullying has always occurred, because children look or act differently, but now media has kind of made it cool to be cruel and the adults have been brainwashed to put cruelty under the umbrella of 'truth',,,,,,

this too will pass though, culture is always changing

CeriseRose says:

How devious are your accusations!!! Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can see that your bumpersticker article is hate-inducing propaganda.

How could some "hatemonger"'s mass producing of bumperstickers of this sort be a cause for public alarm???
+ + +
Nothing in this article proves that Christians participated or incited these acts.

The writer, himself, admits that any of these hateful acts are "perhaps not directly though" and "these suicides are not happening in the biblebelt regions".


And yes, admit it or not, there are many non-Christians and non-religious people capable of bullying as well, probably moreso.

"The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" they say. So who's to say your "sweet little darlings" aren't bullying other children. "Do you know where your children are?"

In this article and your use of it (and others like it) are the the makings of many public scares against "Christians" or "Religious people. It's disgusting how determined some are to pin so much violence on present-day Christianity.

These sort of antics are undermining our youth.

And this too, is a form of bullying. Trying to force and manipulate unsuspecting parents and their children.

Your attempts are an insult to any rational person's common sense, especially young children who are capable of making better decisions for themselves than you seem to instill on them.

I, among others, will be very much relieved to see all your evil efforts thwarted. And they will be. You should beware of your own backfire.

that much is certainly true.

Yeah, it would be disgusting...if so much hate and violence couldn't be, in fact, pinned on religions, including christianity. Present day and the past.

Peter Pan wrote:


Very good, a clarification is definitely in order here. Our bodies are equipped with various types of sensory mechanisms which may not readily fit into one of the 5 basic categories of, sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.

For example, our ‘sense’ of balance; we don’t necessarily need to see with our eyes to comprehend an off balance condition, having sensed this condition it can become part of our immediate thought process and can influence our course of action.

Likewise, sensing temperature changes and pain can influence our immediate behavior and are also ways of gaining knowledge for future reference about situations that affect those senses.

We have a variety of sensory mechanisms, some of which respond only to internal stimuli, they do not naturally, receive direct input from outside the body. What all these senses have in common however, is that they are all part of our physiological cell structure.

So for clarification, "I" would consider individual knowledge to be any part of information perceived by the individual through their external physiological sensory structures.

What do you think about that?



What do you consider to be confirmation of knowledge?



These are beliefs we don’t share and we won’t agree on everything, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It’s the points of disagreement that stimulate discussion, questions, and learning. So we'll only add points on which we agree.

Peter Pan

So your statement would look like this:

>>> “Also that any assesment of ‘information’ that I make is merely my own opinion.” <<<<

But your opinion must be confirmed (substantiated) by something. That 'something' is part of an acceptable form of knowledge for you and it would help to know what from what souces you accept knowledge.

Peter Pan wrote:


Redy replied:


Peter Pan wrote in responce:

I’m not worried - I won’t even ask you why a stop light ‘ought’ to be red – I will ask however, how do you know a stop light is red?
How can you read this post, and write an understandable reply, if we have not both assumed certain things that are commonly assumed to be ‘what is’?

Redy


Peter Pan


Obviously it does or you would not be able to read for content or write to make your ideas understood, nor would you be able to grasp abstract concepts, or use technology efficiently. You would not be able to read a map, follow a recipe, or handle your financial affairs. We are social creatures and as such we learn from each other to accept certain kinds of infomation and incorporate it into our knowledge base.



Is there a recession? Who is running for Congress? Can sound waves be seen? Does light make noise? Can ice be dry?

Clearly ‘what is’ can be outside the realm of our current knowledge base, and can also be misrepresented, misperceived, under or over estimated, and just plain denied.

That’s the reason I thought it might be beneficial to come to some agreement clarifying the term ‘what is’. It could serve as a kind of guide to what we agree would be acceptable sources of information to fill in the deficiencies of our individual knowledge base.

Redy Wrote:


Peter Pan replied:



I think I need to remind you of how this particular discussion started, and the fact that I admitted to making assumptions when I wrote that first post. The purpose was to

To have an understanding of these things will allow us both to .

Peter Pan’s original quote which I utilized


Redy’s original claim of making assumptions.


You make it as sound as if you have no control over the situation. I have asked for your input, I have asked for your opinions and I have continued to do so in this post.

How can we bring any information into a debate or a discussion if we don’t have a clue what kind of information would be acceptable to the other party?

How do we get a point across if we can’t identify what the other considers to be knowledge or reputable sources of knowledge?

What can be provided to show the other person that what they think is (happening) is not what is (happening) outside their small area of perception?

That’s how I consider trying to get to the core of the issues and it was good idea because it seems both our views are being challenged which is what you suggested you do.

Peter Pan


Could you rephrase that into an open ended question, please – I don’t particularly like the choices you’ve provided.

And before you accuse me of limiting your choices in our last few posts, please be remind that I asked for your views, asked you to consider my views and if you agree or disagree. If you didn’t agree you were totally free explain why you didn’t. I was not being emphatic, I was not making judgments about right and wrong and I did not ask for your concession – this was a discussion not a war.

I didn’t think it was going too bad, until I got to the end of this post. If you don’t want to continue – that’s fine.

If you do want to continue you need to leave being emphatic out of the picture, as I stated earlier in this post, we won’t agree on everything.

Red, you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not contending your (our) definition of knowledge or how we arrive at our conclusions (well, maybe how you arrived at yours). I'm refuting your conclusion itself and your insistence that it be done your way or with your rules applied. The most recent case being "If you do want to continue you need to leave being emphatic out of the picture..."

Definition of EMPHATIC
1: uttered with or marked by emphasis

You missed my point entirely. You already stated that 11=3 is not "what is" and equated me to being dyslexic. You jumped to your conclusion first and then tried to explain it. So I emphasised the same question and added claims that would expose the fact that you are not open-minded. All I wanted you to do was to concede that I could be right, but you couldn't do that. After all, I read the Bible, so I must have less knowledge than other people posses.


11 (in binary) does equal 3
11+3 does equal 2 (on a clock)
11 (in binary) + 3 does equal 6

Do you get my point now?

"Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves," the posting reads. "The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin."

Arkansas school official accused of anti-gay screed

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A member of a northern Arkansas school board, commenting on a campaign to get people to wear purple to show support for bullied gay and lesbian youth, purportedly posted on Facebook that the only way he would wear purple is "if they all commit suicide."

http://newsok.com/arkansas-school-official-accused-of-anti-gay-screed/article/3508814?custom_click=headlines_widget

While I, for one, do not support abuse
or murder of gays & lesbians. Nor do I endorse the idea of their resorting to suicide.

I reserve judgement toward the school official's use of the term "sin" which is not indicative of his religious beliefs.
The article doesn't label or mention him as being religious.

The term "sin" nowadays is used rather loosely ... seeing that few acknowledge it's presence in a Biblical sense...It's surprising to see that the term was highlighted at all, except for propaganda purposes.

[ Thesaurus ]
sin (n)

--crime, misdemeanor, transgression, misdeed (formal),
wrongdoing, lapse
antonym: good deed

--wickedness, iniquity, depravity, immorality,
debauchery, evil, turpitude (formal or literary)
antonym: goodness

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


The campaigners refuse to accept any other view besides their own.
This is forced allegience.
Far from "liberty... for all"

So "sin" was not a religious word he used in the context of demonizing gays? Yeah okay...keep trying to worm your way in protecting religion from owning up to it's influences that discriminate against people for they way they are born.

You refute the conclusion itself. What conclusion are you referring to?

If there was disagreement about the statements in the sections of ‘basics’ we would leave out what we did not agree on or add statements that we both agreed on. The point WAS to come to an agreement. I noted that we would build on these agreements, but we had to start somewhere.

Since much of our disagreement, in past posts, seemed to be related to the attainment and use of information, then laying a ground work of agreement pertaining to knowledge seemed the best way to start. What does individual human knowledge consist of? How do individuals gain knowledge? How do individuals utilize their acquired knowledge? And then moving on to perception in order to clarify its effects on knowledge.

I was willing to take to the next step so we might find some kind of agreement regarding the difference between facts and opinion. Since you questioned my reference to “what is” I was trying my best to persuade you in the direction of adding statements in your words about that area.

Instead you wrote the following question:



You provided no context or situation through which to assess the question. You offered a choice of only two possible answers and without more information I could not choose between the two. So I offered another option and I respectfully included a situational context in which my option might fit.



You did not make a point – you asked a question without reference to context or situation and then you provided only two possible answers and there is no way I could possibly know what you think is real.

So I opted to offer one possible situation in which your question could be answered in terms of your own reality. I was not suggesting or inferring that YOU ARE dyslexic, I was offering one possible situation in which your reality would be respected.

If ANYTHING I was consciously trying to avoid “jumping to conclusions”.



I think it is your own bias against me that has blinded you to the fact that I DID CONCEDE. I simply had to place it some kind of context in order to prove that I respected your claim, without sounding condescending or seeming disingenuous by accepting any old generalized or broad-based claim you might make.

I used dyslexia specifically because it relates to the use of numbers and letters, and NOT to equate you to that quality.



If you have a relevant point to make, there is nothing wrong with being transparent about it.
In this case you have only added adversity to the discussion which from it’s beginning was an effort to find common ground.

You may think that your methods are a way to get people to reconsider their position, but to others they look like manipulative ploys to make them look foolish.

In this case you are the only who looks foolish and that was none of my doing.

As you are not happy with the way this discussion has evolved I will be transparent and ask you directly and respectfully the following questions and we’ll be done with it.

What specific sources of information would you use or deem acceptable in formulating a critical assessment of a situation?

What criteria do you expect an acceptable source of information to include?

AND

What criterion do you expect a valid and reliable study or survey to consist of?

If you answer these questions directly and authentically we can avoid many conflicts. Choose to answer them or not, either way your response, or lack of one, will influence how I respond to you in future posts.

You still don't get it...
I told you before I'm not questioning your methodology, just your conclusions. You nit-picking the methods which one arrives at conclusions does nothing to change "what is". It just gives you an excuse to try to appear superior.

Does the following quote (your words) prove or even imply that you conceded???

"So if you equate 11 as being equal to 3, that is your perception however, that’s not ‘what is’. It would be important for you to understand that there is a difference between your perception, in this case, and what is. Your reality remains the same, (11=3), but to be understood by others when discussing that equality you would need to make a conscious correction"

Hmmm, 3 times you state that I was wrong (with different wordings), nowhere did you concede that I could be right. All that you "conceded" was that my perception of reality could be wrong.
I picked that example for a reason. Because I knew you would not question you conclusion and therefore not research it. So yes, you jumped to your conclusion.




Ok, now you call me foolish. LOL! I think not...
I'm confident that I've proven my point, if not to you, to others who would read this post. My method is to get you to doubt yourself. But somehow you equate that to being manipulative when it is you who changes the goal posts, limits another's choices and tries to stack the deck.





I am quite happy with the way this discussion has evolved, it is you who keeps trying to steer it in a direction that would allow you to dismiss my claims and methods. I explained to you earlier what I think M-E and others do. (conclusions first - then facts to support them)

As for your questions, I've already stated that my assessments are my opinions and as such, I can and have been convinced to change them.

Acceptable sources of information = Any and all sources. I will purpously seek out contradicting info to challenge my assessments.

Valid and reliable study or survey = Hard to say, but only an all-inclusive survey would be 100% reliable. I'd be happy with one I deemed non-biased (like that exists...), so I try to find conflicting surveys and assess their merits individually.


Involving this discussion, my source is you and your posts. So feel free to try to discredit my source(s) if you like, but I think it'll be a lose-lose situation if you do.

a human has sovereign self control over itself.

if any wish to committ suicide, than such be their own choice.

any and all persons own their "own" life.

if they decide to "give that up", such was their own sovereign choice.

if any can be made to committ suicide, by words, then such validated itself into their own abyss of self pity, and made itself pathetic, as self pity does, and therefore had no wish to live.

that is their choice.

for these did not decide to die because they were unhappy with the "outisde", but rather they were FIRST NOT HAPPY WITH WHO THEY THEMSELF WERE, ON THE INSIDE.

OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO EFFECTED BY OUTSIDE WORDS.

but, what else shall be created, in a society that embraces self sympthay of the self, FOR ALL IT'S OWN FEELINGS AS GOOD ONES, AND TEACHES THAT "OTHERS" ARE THE CAUSE.

it twas but their OWN LIFE TO START WITH, so their choice of whether to end it or not.

each thing self "feels", itself created with it's own word and action's.

but, outside source is to me made the "enemy"???


no human is somehow immune, by way of some action being in the minority, to what such action shall create in the majority.

if words can first be blamed for "suicide", then soon, no human shall be able hold itself accountible, for anything, and wa lah, why these blamed other's so much, they wished to kill themself.

parents, schools, media, and present mass motive to escape any self accountability, first fostered the notion that these individuals were as "victims", thus infusing the self a victim mentality, that made them want to give up their own life.

nurturing this mentality in any society, will simply make all come to believe that a curse word, hath then power to bring self to the ground.

hum...

lunacy.

the only thing that would embrace such, would be a one that wnated all IT'S OWN FEELINGS VALIDATED BY ALL OUTSIDE SOURCES?

then, WHO DOSEN'T, BE MADE THE ENEMY IN THE SELF MIND?

sheer recipe for disastor, as mental breakdown, then vengence and hated toward other's, then either extrication of self, or violence perpetrated on other's WHO CAUSED THE "PAIN"!

yea right...

same thinking ole postal used.

****ing unsane ridiculious reasoning.

sheer desire for self induced emotional pain to be embraced by outside sources, so much so, that one will kill itself, lol...

such demented minds, due to craving self validation and self sympathy like crack.

no different than the va tech shooter...

he hated what WOULD NOT GIVE IT SYMPATHY, or coddle his "feelings" as supreme!

or speak to it the way self DEMANDED.

****ing ******** reasoning that create an unsane mass energy of collective "spare my feelings" with NEW LAWS, QUICK, I AM BEING ABUSED!

and the self validators pressure for more unsane laws, and for their fellow man to be blamed for their own words and actions.

hogwash.

why has society not embraced the masses as guilty for the columbine shooters "self sympathy wishes run amock"?

what created the columbine shooters?

they did not GET RESPECT, OR WERE NOT SPOKEN TOO, THE WAY THEY WANTED TO BE, BY THEIR OWN FELLOW MAN...

so, self pain as rejection, was internalized, which SELF SYMPATHY ONLY FULES, AND CAN'T EVER CURE, and wa lah, time to kill the bastards!

what a bunch of idiocy being portrayed as logic.

why were the columbine shooters not given sympathy, for they say they were bullied, and killed themself?

but the public was not sblamed for THEIR ACTIONS?

why the loud cry to blame the public for the "self killing" gays?

lol...

every last person that ever committed violence to another, first had "vengence" in mind, and who has vengence?

anything that "hold a grudge" due to another's action or words?

and who could hold a grudge, lest they had embraced the notion, created by their OWN FEELINGS, THAT OTHER'S WERE SUPPOSED TO SPEAK TO THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DEMANDS?

ah, hello...

LOL...

thats ****ing unsane to start with.

unsanity of self validation of the self feelings shall indeed cause many more to destroy themself, the more "purple" be worn.

hello...

they wanted their own behaviour and self feelings to rule over all the other actions and words in the world, or they would kill themself?

so, purple shall just make more kill themself, lol...

no wonder they have such mental issues.

if a human hasn't been taught, not to allow words to have control over self's OWN behaviour, than it was taught wrong by ALL ENVIRONMENT, but self is still OWNER OF ITSELF, and the cure for this shall never come, by embracing that human's should be so pathetic, that any negative feelings itself has, coming by words spoken from other's, should BE DEEMED AS SUPREME, AND THAT "OUTSIDE" SOURCE BE THE CULPRIT AS THE ENEMY...

delusion.

delusion.

delusion.

which create UNSANITY.

same thing howard hughs did.

same thing hitler did.

same thing all killer's did.

same thing jeffery dahmer did.

same thing every serial murder did.

self pain of self, self demand of self, WAS THE SOLE GUIDE IN THE MIND, and then the DECIDER, OF WHOM SHALL BE TORTURED, raped, killed, maimed...

SUCH EMBRACED AS "GOOD", AND CORRECT, CREATE THE VERY FIRST MENTALITY, THAT THE "ENEMY" BE LURKING WITH FOUL WORDS, to harm self, that created such menality that would "off itself" or others to begin with.

nothing totally sane itself would or could ever embrace such methology of thought process as valid and beneficial to society, and the only things that do embrace such, are those that already have extreme mental unbalances within themself.

sheer unsanity run amock by self feelings as supreme.

but then indeed,