Philosophy Now Forum

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

GIA wrote:Homophobia is so ugly. You might want to have that fixed.

If we are going to be 'fixing' minds and spirits, and perceptual structures, I suggest it may go both ways, friend.

I notice - again - that people who have been brought up in 'radical liberalism', when they hear a statement that seems to them to operate against their politically-correct idea (a total metaphysic with an established ethics), cannot really hear what one is saying. It is the strangest thing, really. So, let's break it down, again. It may take ten re-phrasings or a hundred. It is also possible that the content can never be heard. Yet, inevitably, someone, somewhere hears.

Homosexuality is a part of human culture, has been and will always be. The so-called 'closeted variety' must be accepted, in my view.

The creation of a homosexual culture, or the 'selling' of homosexuality, or training people up in homosexuality, or introducing it to children, or the inculcation (by visual image, through public relations techniques, and other means) of homosexual practice and behaviour; the introduction of homosexuality as a 'normal social attitude', or as a desired social attitude or practice, is a significant, an unprecedented event in culture.

You are speking from ignorance. Most historical cultures had ways that accommodated homosexuality. What you mean is that it is unprecedented in your narrow christian-centric world view. Anthropologists know better. You are just an ignorant Christian.
I shall forgive your ignorance, but not your persistent evil.

The 'homosexualisation of culture', according to me, and based on a designed, a practical, a coherent and a thought-out strategy, is not desirable, not good, and should be actively discouraged. (I have not mentioned the governmental support or valuation of homosexuality, yet it should also be brought out as discussable. I suggest that it might be considered a wee bit strange - unsettling? - that the US White House was lit up in 'pride' colours recently).

You are just responding to a childish homophobia, what exactly are you scared of big boy. Mwah! Give me a big kiss you naughty thing!

I further suggest that homosexuality, at the most basic level, is metaphysically corrupt, yet I doubt that this will be understood (without much explanation. But in radical liberalism many many strange things are not seen as strange at all! They are seen as 'normal' and 'necessary', indeed they flow out of metaphysical predicates, predicates that can be named and explained).

How ignorant and stupid can one man get? "metaphysically corrupt". You are on a different planet. I don't think you know what metaphysics is.

In the 1980s and 90s, there was a concerted and rational effort made within the entertainment industry, the psychological industry, in collusion with the PR industry, and also within business sectors, to mainstream homosexuality. Now, 30 years or so on, we are seeing the 'fruit' of these efforts. To understand better what I am saying, you'd need to do some research, to understand the strategy that was implemented. You might say: I support that. You might say Hmmm. Seems a bit odd. Or: I don't agree with that at all.

You could start with "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" It is a 300+ page manifesto, by Harvard-trained psychologist and a PR man, outlining a strategy of manipulation of public attitude. We generally refer to this as 'propaganda', yet we are so inured to it that we call it Public Relations and advertising, forgetting that it is mind-control.

The gist of the book appeared first as an essay in a gay publication (The Overhauling of Straight America) and can be found here in PDF.

What are you scared of? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Lacewing:

1) I would say not my ideas but 'the ideas'. A general area of ideas. Even to argue against. What else?

2) Does the 'extent' of certainty bother you? Why?

3) I feel I have some certainty when I speak, otherwise I could not speak. Still all my investigations I term 'experimental'. There are in my view vast and destructive constructs that require dismantling. It is a daunting task. I mean 'the structure of lies surrounding us'.

4) I extend my view to a critique of attitudes and ideas that I have discovered are common and prevalent. In many senses I am not speaking to individuals, but to those attitudes and ideas. But yes, all viewpoint is a superimposition.

5) 'Normal cooperative discussion', did you say? I agree that such a constructive conversation is possible, but more likely among those who share basic agreements. I do not feel that you and I (for example) share basic agreements. Quite possibly the opposite is the case. Also, I seek challenge. I am not interested in 'cooperative' projects here, and very certainly insofar asI am taking contrary philosophical-political positions. I do not desire to 'cooperate' with you. Can it be made more plain?

6) Please feel free to point out and label any 'projection' that you notice. But note this too: If one 'projects' it does not mean that one is not noticing something real (outside of one). An assessment is in a sense a 'projection'. But what Dear Hobbles did, above (the 'Nettle Post'), is more classically 'projection'. And as I say a 'curse'. It has to do with projection of one's own content. Again, correct any error that you notice, projection or what have you, but especially of ideas.

7) I think you, and others here, don't like the content yet you say you don't like the words, the style, the length, or the tone. If you don't like it, don't read it. What could be more simple?

"But are any of us in a position INDIVIDUALLY and UNIQUELY to do anything more than guess?" That is both a statement and a question. How would you go about answering that? When you do so, I suggest you will uncover and enunciate much about your own 'operative metaphysic'. If you are in no position to do more than guess: Say so.

9) I am interesting in disarming, and discrediting ideas that I comprehend as 'destructive'. I am not concerned for individuals. Or, I am far less concerned. There are huge and vital ideas at question here. Whether you see this or not, whether it is important to you, or not. Only you can define yourself, ultimately.

10) 'Very transparent male energy', in contradistinction to an 'opaque female energy'? As you may have guessed, and with this sort of statement, you reveal much of your underpinning. Ideas form a part of a metaphysical platform. Gender is a big one, a huge part of our era. You seem to have integrated a common one that critiques 'male energy' as a 'bad thing'. You are free to do that. I reverse the assessment. I assert that male energy has made and continues to make this world. 'Female energy' means little until defined. Might you speak of 'feminine intellect'? or 'feminine ethic'? Or a 'feminine philosophy'? Intellect is a peculiarly masculine domain. You, as woman, enter that domain. You surely did not invent it or populate it. There is much MUCH that can be talked about in all this. It would be quite welcome if you ventured forth to discuss some of your ideas in this area - If you so choose.

11) All has been 'silly preamble' so far. I wonder if it will continue. My sense is that you will toss up your hands in dismay.

12) If you don't wish to discuss, don't discuss. It is that simple.

Hobbled wrote:What are you scared of? Have you ever asked yourself that?

The psychoanalytical angle, eh?

I shall forgive your ignorance, but not your persistent evil.

That's good theology!

I don't think you know what metaphysics is.

Can you fill me in? I find the word tremendously complex. When I use it, I refer to a part of a complexity. It is a good term though, and quite useful in these conversations.

Can I go now?

In regards to the OP, what of it? Reason segregates and defines according to the fancies of the individual. Therefore, the conclusion that religion consists of "fairy tales" is just another postulate that carries with it no meaning or value. So what if religions are fairy tales for adults?

The question is, what makes religions different than anything else we see in this forum? Why is religion found in every culture throughout the world? Why does it persist?

"From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated." (Edouard Récéjac) Like it or not and in spite of its sordid history, religions are an emergent property of the human search for values. They serve to establish standards that makes civilization possible.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[

I've noticed that about him too. I just resigned my self to calling him a wind-bag.

I do not mind wordiness that adds to a discussion but his did not.

Regards
DL[/quote]
There are words with meaning, and there are words for effect. His are used for effect, but the effect is to make people's eyes glaze over. Reading one of his longer posts reminds me of Basil Faulty pressing his hand into a large blancmange, looking to the duck a l'orange. There is no duck!
His passages are like blancmange, with no substance.[/quote]

I hear you but try to restrict myself on such issues because of this bit.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

I see too many ignore that good advice and try not to ignore it too often.

Regards
DL

The Inglorious One wrote:

In regards to the OP, what of it? Reason segregates and defines according to the fancies of the individual. Therefore, the conclusion that religion consists of "fairy tales" is just another postulate that carries with it no meaning or value. So what if religions are fairy tales for adults?

So what if we based our discriminations against gays and women on a myth. Who cares. Right?

Not the females in your environ. Right? They like to be second class citizens. Right?

Are those two reasons and evils that are caused by reading myths literally enough for you to get just a tad disturbed?

The question is, what makes religions different than anything else we see in this forum? Why is religion found in every culture throughout the world? Why does it persist?

Mostly due to insecurity I think and our hivish or groupish natures that get high jacked by expert liars.

That is my view but experts are getting closer to all the defects that cause us to be religious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg&app=desktop

"From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated." (Edouard Récéjac) Like it or not and in spite of its sordid history, religions are an emergent property of the human search for values. They serve to establish standards that makes civilization possible.

Secular law is what has done that in spite of religions slowing down our civilizing process.

Have you not noticed that no Christian is stupid enough to as for biblical law to be the law of the land?

Religions are social clubs, first and formost, that appease our hivish needs.

Even atheists recognize that need and that is why they are opening atheist churches.

Regards
DL

Meh. Just another postulate that carries with it no meaning or value.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Can I go now?

Please do. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of Being, Gustav, and thus likely to be beyond your intellectual grasp. Being is an existential phenomenon which is more often expressed in its depth than in its breadth and is thus unsuited to those who are a mile wide but only half an inch deep. I suggest you quietly slip away before you embarrass yourself further, there's a good chap.

Greatest I am wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

What is a person like me exactly, GAI? No, seriously. If I get the blame for oppressing women, the least you can do is tell me who you think I am. I'm waiting. Because I'm not of an Abrahamic faith, nor Dharmic.

Why do you assume my religion?

Most mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny.

If you are in one of those, you are a part of the problem and not the solution unless you are fighting your own from within.

Regards
DL

Well, I'm not in a religion, and as an antinatalist dislike all suffering. We've been through this before. Don't make me repeat myself.

FYI, DL, Andy Thomson (the speaker in the video you linked to) is a simple-minded bigot speaking to the choir. The fact remains, "From the moment that man is no longer content to devise things useful for his existence under the exclusive action of the "will-to live," the principle of Evolution has been violated."

Attacking someone who is not here to defend himself is quite the debate tactic.

Regards
DL

Dalek Prime wrote:[

Most mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny.

If you are in one of those, you are a part of the problem and not the solution unless you are fighting your own from within.

Regards
DL

Well, I'm not in a religion, and as an antinatalist dislike all suffering. [/quote]

All antinatalists will become redundant soon as our population stabilizes at about 10 billion. A population the earth can easily carry.

Regards
DL

Alla mia infermiera preferita ...

The true harvest of my life is somewhat as
intangible and indescribable as the tints of morning or
evening. It is a little star-dust caught, a segment of
the rainbow which I have clutched.

[/b]

Greatest I am wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:[

Most mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny.

If you are in one of those, you are a part of the problem and not the solution unless you are fighting your own from within.

Regards
DL

Well, I'm not in a religion, and as an antinatalist dislike all suffering.

All antinatalists will become redundant soon as our population stabilizes at about 10 billion. A population the earth can easily carry.

Regards
DL[/quote]
Lol! Alrighty then.

Greatest I am wrote:Attacking someone who is not here to defend himself is quite the debate tactic.

Regards
DL

Okay. If you agree with him, you are the simple-minded bigot.