Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:56 pm In what way does homosexuality, whether on public display or suppressed, affect the male-female relationship?

Have you read what I have written in this thread on the topic?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:36 pm Let me ask you this: What do you think of the ethical base or the moral base of my position: that homosexual unions, homosexual life-styles, homosexual sexual practices, and homosexual public displays are best suppressed (curtailed, limited, let's say *frowned upon*) in a culture that holds to, values, elevates, places on a higher rank of hierarchy, the specific male-female union in the context of a culture that desires large families and the value-sets that attends this?

You didn't ask me, but I think it's ridiculous. You can't change homosexuality. You can't just make up some incentives for people to be straight and hope all the gay people become straight - sexuality doesn't work that way. If you want a higher birth rate, there are more humane, sensible, effective ways of doing that than giving a shit what gay people do.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:54 pm Semen and feces should be seen as improper to combine.

I suspect that Wizard started life as such a combination, so I am inclined to agree with you.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:58 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:56 pm In what way does homosexuality, whether on public display or suppressed, affect the male-female relationship?

Have you read what I have written in this thread on the topic?

No, I haven't.

And what about your children; do you feel unable to divulge how many they are in number?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 4:39 pm I think you might want to revise your use of the word "SOUND".

You obviously believe in the category of *evil*. (Or did you use the term casually?)

If that is so, would you agree that "Evil cannot create anything new, but can only corrupt and ruin what the force of good has created"?

I would say that in respect to Tolkienn's views that the statement in quotes above corresponds to his ideas. In that sense it is *sound*.

No. Evil does not exist anymore than good. They are just adjectival or adverbial. They are just subjective reflections.

As for Tolkien, the quote was from a work of fiction, which the "paraphrase" removed reference to, and being out of context is not valuable as a generalism.

But my grammatical observation was missed entirely . The "meme" leads with "Evil" as a noun, but presses on with "THEY", who have not been named or identified. It's clumsy rubbish.

But worst still Frodo is talking about Sauron (I presume) he was not talking about "evil".
None of which has the slightest relevance to this thread.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:54 pm Semen and feces should be seen as improper to combine.

On what basis?

I misread that multiple times, I thought it said "semen and faces" and I thought, damn, dude seems like he really needs a blow job.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:54 pm Then your *satire* had another function and purpose which you now clarify and define?

Are you serious, did you really only just learn what the intent of that post was?

I may have incorrectly assumed you were less stupid than Wizard.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:59 pm You didn't ask me, but I think it's ridiculous. You can't change homosexuality.

I did not propose to ‘change’ homosexual’s. I spoke of a social attitude toward it that is less permissive, less tolerant. Not cruelly restrictive, not violent.

You do not seem to be reading what I write but what you think I am saying.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:20 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:54 pm Semen and feces should be seen as improper to combine.

On what basis?

Symbolical, metaphysical, aesthetic principally.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 6:25 pm I misread that multiple times, I thought it said "semen and faces" and I thought, damn, dude seems like he really needs a blow job.

Kind of a reader’s Freudian slip, eh?

Still have my doubts about you, you perv ….

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:36 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:31 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:28 pm
Let me get this straight. You are attempting to work the rather tried-and-true angle that those who have issues with flagrant homosexuality, or with the broadcasting of homosexuality (in media, movies, literature, advertising) that this indicates a latent, suppressed homosexuality?

And you think that is really and truly a valid argument in this context? Really?

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of tried-and-true. And I didn't quote a post where you were complaining about flagrant homosexuality. I certainly understand that some people prefer a more subtle version and have no expectations about anyone's style.

I am not understanding very well what you mean.

Let me ask you this: What do you think of the ethical base or the moral base of my position: that homosexual unions, homosexual life-styles, homosexual sexual practices, and homosexual public displays are best suppressed (curtailed, limited, let's say *frowned upon*) in a culture that holds to, values, elevates, places on a higher rank of hierarchy, the specific male-female union in the context of a culture that desires large families and the value-sets that attends this?

I am curious if you can relate to any part of that or just what you think?

Tried and true: tested and found to be reliable or workable.

Oh, so you thought our jibes were effective. Peachy! Though I was having fun not with your judgments of flagrancy but with your winky, near flirty double pride in being able to spot gays. The bonding.

As far as I can tell society now, even with all the current LGBTQ hullaballo, still values heterosexuality higher. There are certainly gays, for example, high on celebrity lists, but the majority, straight. Number 28 was the first most famous person who was gay, Ellen Degeneres. yes, there are lots more gay and other characters than earlier in history, but most movies still center on heterocouples. Most people are hetero, and they are all focused on getting heteropartners. I do see the occasional same sex couple walking hand in hand in the city I live in. But I see vastly more PDA between heterosexuals. Fascination mostly with straight weddings. Obsession mainly with famous het couples.

I don't know why we need large families. I don't think the increasing world population needs to keep increasing. Levelling off seems fine to me. And the morons who want to do all the gene engineering, cloning, transhuman shit will probably come up with hundreds of other ways to make humans and I can only hope that straights and gays alike stop them before they mess everything up to the bone.

Frown away.

There are things that make me gasp in horror.

But I don't begrudge you your frowning. If the world population starts dropping and I'm afraid to hold hands with my wife in public, I'll get back to you.

I think there are bigger fish to frown at. Decadence at a level only technocrats could dream of. Decadent displays at a level only technocrats could dream of and corporations could appropriate.

The non-human incursions into the human are a real threat.

Two men having sex???? And not feeling like they have to hide their relationship?

How about a man and a machine being one entity, that's closer than sex. And that's one of the more banal fantasies they are in the middle of realizing around us.

That's fucking decadence.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:27 pm Oh, so you thought our jibes were effective.

No, I feared that was all I would get.

Though I was having fun not with your judgments of flagrancy but with your winky, near flirty double pride in being able to spot gays. The bonding.

You seem to be more inclined to insults, subtle or blatant. That’s fine if that is the way you desire to proceed.

But I *identified* Flash strictly by the homoerotic piece he wrote.

“Winky, near flirty double pride” — I can’t take seriously. But if it pleases you to write odd things keep it up.

As far as I can tell society now, even with all the current LGBTQ hullaballo, still values heterosexuality higher.

And what if it didn’t?

My own opinion, non-conclusive, is that generally it doesn’t.

Most people are hetero, and they are all focused on getting heteropartners.

This is good then. And it sounds like you sort-of support the attitude (?) And in my view it is the better attitude. That’s why I mentioned hierarchies of value.

However, my take from lots of reading, and some historical analysis, is that since the 1960s that the family-valuation I refer to, and the family itself, has suffered as a result of the sexual revolution (of which homosexuality is a part).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:24 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 5:59 pm You didn't ask me, but I think it's ridiculous. You can't change homosexuality.

I did not propose to ‘change’ homosexual’s. I spoke of a social attitude toward it that is less permissive, less tolerant. Not cruelly restrictive, not violent.

You do not seem to be reading what I write but what you think I am saying.

What would the benefit be of not being "permissive" of people who have unchangable traits? What could that accomplish? Other than needless cruelty of course.

Is the cruelty the point?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:54 pm No, I feared that was all I would get.

Oh, then they weren't tried and true.

You seem to be more inclined to insults, subtle or blatant. That’s fine if that is the way you desire to proceed.

Thank you.

But I *identified* Flash strictly by the homoerotic piece he wrote.

Yes, that must have indicated he was gay. You might want to consider I was being ironic about your reasoning not merely insulting you both.

“Winky, near flirty double pride” — I can’t take seriously. But if it pleases you to write odd things keep it up.

Thank you, but just so you know, I don't expect permission.

As far as I can tell society now, even with all the current LGBTQ hullaballo, still values heterosexuality higher.

And what if it didn’t?

My own opinion, non-conclusive, is that generally it doesn’t.

Perhaps the fact that the media want us all to fight and not deal with those who really have power has distracted you.

Most people are hetero, and they are all focused on getting heteropartners.

This is good then. And it sounds like you sort-of support the attitude (?) And in my view it is the better attitude. That’s why I mentioned hierarchies of value.

I think it's a natural outcome of being in the majority. They want to be entertained primarily through their own filters. They are fascinated with...what they are fascinated with. They prioritize...their priorities.

However, my take from lots of reading, and some historical analysis, is that since the 1960s that the family-valuation I refer to, and the family itself, has suffered as a result of the sexual revolution (of which homosexuality is a part).

And the 50s led to the 60s. What toxic stuff was in there that made the 60s what they were. We could try to go back to the way men and women related to each other and the roles we had then...but lo, we know what that leads to.

And I still don't understand why we need an ever increasing population.