'I've heard this repeatedly but I never hear anything to back it up. I've bought ammonium nitrate fertilizer post-9/11. 50 lb bags, $8/bag.'
That's the 'it can be had' part. There just isn't as much of it and you can't find it everywhere now. Largely it just depends on where you are. If you are in a community with a small local outfit that chooses to carry it anyway you'll find it. If they have a good relation with a supplier you'll get it cheap. Where it is available people use LOTS of it.
If you are in a town where a corporate chain has put the local outfit out of business; say a home depot, lowes, walmart, etc. You won't find ammonium nitrate anymore. You used to be able to buy those $50/lb bags on the cheap anywhere. Now it is limited to a few small rural outlets and those are becoming more and more scarce every day.
'Of course, fertilizer grade and bomb grade aren't the same thing -- the fertilizer is processed so as to make it more difficult to use in a bomb. I think it mostly has to do with how the prills are formed.'
Yes, it has to be ground fine and the moisture removed with alcohol washes to use in explosives manufacture. While powerful, most explosives made with ammonium nitrate are very stable and it actually takes a strong blasting cap to make it pop. By all means, refer to improvised C-4 books to learn more about this fun hobby.
'Oh, and the anhydrous ammonia isn't exactly free of regulation -- the DEA cares about that one, because it can be used in methamphetamine and MDA production.'
Yeah. When I say regulated I am talking about the manufacture and sale. The DEA isn't really hassling the distribution chain, they are monitoring the end purchasers. Buy the wrong combination of crap and you'll be harassed with a DEA raid. Nevermind that for every meth 'lab' (read kid in his basement with a nose ring, not scientist with a white coat) they raid there are several dozen innocent people who just bought the wrong stuff raided.
'That's funny, seeing as how we're waging the war in a mannor completely unsuited towards keeping oil supplies up.'
Who said anything about keeping oil supplies up? You seem to have this crazy idea if the war is about oil its about protecting the interests of america in oil. The war isn't to let you keep your SUV. The war is for the benefit of the oil companies not the consumer.
Bzzt you just failed. A free market is a market with no government regulation or intervention. Economically speaking everyone starts equal (in a mythical free market world, in the real world some are born rich, others are born poor) but the moment someone is able to manipulate the market in a way that gives them more wealth than others they wield more economic power.
A free market is economic anarchy. The natural result is the strong (wealthy) exploiting the weak (the other 99%). As someone else pointed out, we technically don't have a free market anymore. I would like to remind those people that we don't have any anarchies anymore either.
A true free market is akin to anarchy in the economic world. After all, that is what anarchy is, a lack of regulation. The results are the same, the strong utilize their power to exploit the weak. Because they are strong, the only ones they must placate are those who are also strong. The weak take what terms they are given because they have no choice.
Since we are talking about an economy, the strong is the wealthy. It's beside the point but before someone points out strength and wealth being the same thing I would like to remind them of feudal europe. The strong (the lords) could take the wealth of merchants at will.
'there's so many conditions and laws on employment, it's no where near a free market'
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Employment isn't entirely a free market now but it used to be. The cold and cruel conditions that killed workers left and right while failing to pay them a livable wage are the reason employment is regulated now.
'The fertilizer bombs haven't made it any less available.'
It can still be had but you are crazy if you think its not less available.
'the decline is more connected to rising use of anhydrous ammonia (which is cheaper).'
Because of the increased regulation of Ammonium Nitrate.
'right now, it's made with fossil fuels, though that could change in the future.'
There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels in and of itself. If using fossil fuels is cheaper then have at it. So long as the fertilizer can be cheaply made from renewable sources with existing technology the resulting crops remain a realistic renewable choice.
'it's an energy cost that has to be accounted for in determining whether the biofuel is energy positive and by how much'
If you mean the energy required to produce the fertilizer you are correct. The actual energy stored in the fertilizer becomes part of the energy stored in the plant mass. Particularly nitrogen fertilizer since if I remember correctly it converts entirely into plant mass without byproducts. Actually, the only byproduct of plant growth that I know of is oxygen. Conviently, oxygen is also a form of stored energy that is useful to humans.
'which is made from atmospheric N2 + H2 from fossil fuel sources (mostly natural gas, but also oil and coal to some extent)'
That would seem relevant until you realize that we can readily derive ammonium nitrate from renewable sources, including urine.
Ammonium nitrate also isn't the cheapest source of nitrogen available to farmers. It isn't used nearly as widely as it was a decade ago. Something to do with making fertilizers bombs.
'Why not charge military expenses to the existence of religious insanity?'
Religious insanity is the farse being used to justify a war that really has nothing to do with religious fanatics and everything to with oil.
'Why not add the cost of building roads to the price of oil?'
Because roads are more appropriately added to the cost of using rubber tires. Regardless of what type of fuel we use we will need to use roads until we come up with a solution that is superior to rubber tires.
'How about the cost of educating future oil company employees'
The market takes care of this. Oil companies have to pay those employees based upon supply and demand, if that doesn't amount to enough to pay for their education then Oil comapanies will have to adjust their pay scales.
'or feeding them until they join the oil company'
Somehow I think they would be eating regardless of what field they went into.
'This type of ethanol works great in places like Brazil because they make it out of sugar cane'
If we didn't have ridiculous subsidies in place to allow american sugar plantations to compete we would pay the real price for sugar and could probably do the same.
He hid his credibility along with his identity. It is a self-correcting situation. A major CEO disparaging another company might actually attract an audience, this is a public figure with some sort of reputation.
His alter ego is basically the equivelent of an AC and his statements must stand on their own. The only way the comments would make a difference is if they ring true with others reading the posts. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter who is saying it.
If you don't want a laundry list then don't put up a job posting that smacks of laundry list mentality. If you list 10 very specific technologies that your candidate must be proficient in then I will list every one of them on my resume guaranteed. After all, you have already told me you won't consider a candidate unless they list all of those things.
For example, it is very reasonable to list 'Experience with backup technologies and mechanical tape drives.' But you should expect a laundry list back if you listed a specific program, drive, or version of a program. If you understand backup schemes and how tape drives operate then the actual software used to perform the function really doesn't matter.
'We are much more impressed by someone who simply says "I don't know" than someone who tries to bullshit us.'
No doubt, but the tech world does push people to this. Ignorant employers or performing general onsite service is essentially sales and requires selling your customer on the idea that if you don't know it, nobody does.
I hear you. Thats why I will refrain from a point by point response and just respond to what I think is the meat of your post.
'Whether you intend it or not, it comes off as "Yes you're a horribly broken and unnatural freak of nature, but it's ok. It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you. Don't worry though, I don't hate you."'
How can my post 'come off as' anything? Either I said it or I didn't. It is inappropriate to read things into my statements, if I meant 'x' then I would say 'x'.
I think we have fundementally different views of the world. You are attempting to place emotional emphasis on statements in a way that doesn't even make sense to me. For instance, 'horribly broken'. I never said anything of the sort. I did say broken but someone with high blood pressure or a cold is broken. I really don't have any 'feelings' on the subject at all. I don't find broken functions to be an emotional issue. If I had atheletes foot and you pointed out that you viewed people with athletes foot as broken I wouldn't be offended. I certainly wouldn't view you as having said I was 'horribly broken' but rather just indifferently stating a factual point. Another example is 'unnatural freak of nature'. I don't believe in freaks of nature. I don't view those who are different from myself as freaks. Maybe you aren't self concious because of people treating you as a freak, maybe it is YOU who are intolerate of those different from yourself and therefore view someone pointing out differences as attacking.
'It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you.'
I never said anything even vaguely resembling this. I believe the only KNOWN purpose of the species is to survive and perpetuate itself. The most obvious way of doing this is to breed. That is neither an implication nor a statement that those who can't (or don't) breed are useless or worse a burden.
'It's just plain dishonest when you try to seem tolerant'
I don't try to seem anything. This entire discussion is for your benefit. I also wouldn't describe myself as tolerant. Indifferent is a better word. Homosexuals (as a group) and homosexuality isn't really something I consider an important issue.
'then immediately turn around and say that it's on the same level as a deformity'
I don't have negative feelings about people with deformities so I fail to see the point. Deformities cause the impairment of some function. I could have said bad teeth for example and the point would be the same. I chose deformity because it is a physical flaw that one is born with. How 'horrible' the impairment is something that varies individually.
'it's only because enough people have rallied to it's defense that it hasn't yet died the death it deserves.'
I never said anything of the sort. I did say that having a sexual preference that causes them not to mate and have offspring would effectively result in the genes not being selected in the long term. How is that offensive? It's factual.
If that is what you were referring to then I either miswrote or you misread. I didn't say anything about people rallying to its defense, I said that the anti-homosexuality movement is what has led to the spread of homosexuality. I didn't explain my reasoning though. It is the gay bashers and bible freaks who have caused homosexuals to be afraid of living a lifestyle in accordance with their sexual preferences/orientation. This has led to marriage to women and having children despite the fact that homosexuals aren't attracted to women. I also certainly never said anything homosexuality deserving death.
'Don't worry though, I don't hate you.'
Isn't that why we are having this conversation? You have decided I am gay bashing? Of course, if I don't hate gays, then I am merely stating my opinion and not bashing at all.
'Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.
To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.'
Nonsense, males have their own pecking order and it has nothing to do with physical attraction. How do you determine when another man is a threat in the mating game? Easy, you watch the ladies. At no point do men need to be attracted to other men.
'Contrary to what most homophobes would have you believe, it is possible for a man to find another man to be good looking WITHOUT being sexually attracted to him.'
It's not even possible for a man to find a woman to be good looking without being sexually attracted to them at some level.
'You must have a fair degree of self-loathing then (assuming you're male) every time you look in the mirror.'
I didn't say I loathed men, I said they weren't pleasant to look at.
'If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? '
Because those on hormone therepy either already have a reversed sexual preference, are taking more of their gender's predominent hormone, or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated. Aside from that, human beings do have an intellect as well. If you have urges that conflict with what you have always desired you aren't going to jump on a table and start dancing and singing showtunes.
'You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers.'
No, I'm saying that SOME straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone. I know it is easier to debate if you take every comment I made about people and attempt to turn it into some sort of blanket statement. Unfortunately for you, I don't generally use any blanket statements and even when I use phrasing to a blanket effect it is usually a slip and not what I meant. We live in a complex world, there are exceptions to everything. There are billions of people, exceptions could include millions.
You can claim that homosexuality is a choice and I would agree that it is possible to choose it. However, a homosexual can usually be spotted on the subway wearing a formal business suit. It isn't about simply physical size, there are plenty of skinny straight guys and there are bulky gay guys. Even a homosexual won't dispute that, its called gaydar. It isn't a perfect system, you will have false positives but there is a distinction that can be detected without concious consideration. There is something physical and innate that most homosexuals are born with. If you would claim that it isn't a hormonal imbalance that makes homosexuals feminine and attracted to men; so be it. I'm not married to the theory. I'm open to other possibilities.
'Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body.'
Yes, and so is eating fast food.
'So if you're suggesting that every man I've known that has made some comment about the attractiveness, or unattractiveness as the case more often is, of another male is bisexual or gay, I'm not sure how it helps your argument that male-male attraction is abnormal because that criterion would select for just about all of them.'
You seem to have an obsession with normal vs abnormal. EVERYONE IS ABNORMAL in numerous respects. Hell, lets get the cat out of the bag, I'd venture that MOST men have had incestrial thoughts at some point and had desires to have sexual relations with underage females! That would make MOST men abnormal! Oh my!
That said. We are talking about finding someone attractive, not unattractive. Attractive requires a level of attraction. Unattractive is a term that can be used to describe those that are neutral to you or something ugly that repels you. Seeing a fat plumbers crack repels me. Seeing someone with a gross disformity repels me. I do not see men as a sex object and therefore do not have the ability to judge how attractive they are, therefore they are all unattractive to me. Seeing a clothed male stirs no more feeling of attraction in me than seeing a phone or sidewalk. Sorry, that is just how it is.
You suggest this is some sort of result of a rigid anti-gay movement damaging me psychologically. I suppose it is possible but that seems a strange view. After all, while I have nothing against homosexuals (and have very close friends who were homosexual), I still don't think anyone could claim homosexuality is a natural state for a healthy adult with neither a damaged psyche nor a chemical imbalance of any sort. Humans are designed to reproduce and homosexuals can not reproduce. It may take awhile (amusingly BECAUSE the anti-gay mentality has caused homo
'I guess you don't watch football (neither U.S. "football" nor male European "soccer"), male basketball, male baseball, and so on.'
Nope.
'Almost no war movies (there are few with women roles),'
I watch movies to be entertained by the story and events, not to see the people. I read books with male characters as well. I don't freak out in locker rooms and I've showered with 30 other guys before.
Not preferring to see naked guys does not mean I am incapable of living in a world that has other males in it.
'Save your apparent disgust for real problems.'
Disgust is not a choice. Either I find something disgusting or not. I find the idea of having relations with other men disgusting, get over it. I enjoy eating escargot, many find that disgusting; I don't particularly care. Why do you care what I find disgusting?
'By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies.'
We are not hermaphrodites, nor capable of asexual reproduction. Our sex drives are powered entirely by hormones (mainly testosterone and estrogen). Therefore any hormone combination that does not lead to desiring the opposite sex is an imbalance. Now, if you do desire the opposite sex and use members of the same gender in the same manner as masterbation then that is something else now isn't it?
There is nothing bad about having a hormonal imbalance, everyone spends their teenage and adolescence in a state of hormonal imbalance and females are constantly in a state or hormonal imbalance from the time they are 12 until they complete menopause. Many straight men have an excess of testoterone with shrunken testicles and bald heads.
Perhaps you don't like the idea because while it is something homosexuals are born with, it would make them 'abnormal'. Apparently my gay sensitivity courses were a waste of time because I don't care about making people feel normal. So far I haven't met any of these mythical 'normal' people and I am not about assure someone their behavior is 'normal'.
I don't care if you are gay, I don't care if anyone is gay. Be gay, marry one another, live life. I don't especially care. Provided you aren't into PDA that would make me uncomfortable we can even be friends and hang out. If you hit on me I won't respond in a violent manner. Will I find it disgusting? Probably, but no more disgusting than if an extremely unattractive female hit on me.
Back to the topic at hand. Straight guys couldn't tell you which guy is supposed to be attractive. We have no clue, because we aren't even slightly attracted. Females on the hand can tell when other females are attractive (although they have different tastes). This concludes the basis for my theory that all females are subconciously bi. Therefore, attractive females being naked makes for nice scenery for all.
Contrary to what most homosexuals would have you believe, it is possible to both find male on male relations disgusting AND be confident in your own sexuality.
Personally, I couldn't care less about what others with hormone deficiencies do. But I don't especially enjoy seeing male forms clothed let alone nude. There are comparable views. A greasy pile of feces, slugs, cockroaches, etc. I'd rather not surround myself with these unappealing things.
Thats just it, we don't all agree on what is benign. I don't trust the government to decide for me and quite frankly don't consider the government to be benign. I'm not merely afraid of a change in colors in the future, the decision making government of today is stocked almost exclusively with dirty, corrupt, lying, weasels.
Slashdot Mirror
'to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality 'is' between death and later revival'
The same place your computer's conciousness goes when you turn it off.
'I've heard this repeatedly but I never hear anything to back it up. I've bought ammonium nitrate fertilizer post-9/11. 50 lb bags, $8/bag.'
That's the 'it can be had' part. There just isn't as much of it and you can't find it everywhere now. Largely it just depends on where you are. If you are in a community with a small local outfit that chooses to carry it anyway you'll find it. If they have a good relation with a supplier you'll get it cheap. Where it is available people use LOTS of it.
If you are in a town where a corporate chain has put the local outfit out of business; say a home depot, lowes, walmart, etc. You won't find ammonium nitrate anymore. You used to be able to buy those $50/lb bags on the cheap anywhere. Now it is limited to a few small rural outlets and those are becoming more and more scarce every day.
'Of course, fertilizer grade and bomb grade aren't the same thing -- the fertilizer is processed so as to make it more difficult to use in a bomb. I think it mostly has to do with how the prills are formed.'
Yes, it has to be ground fine and the moisture removed with alcohol washes to use in explosives manufacture. While powerful, most explosives made with ammonium nitrate are very stable and it actually takes a strong blasting cap to make it pop. By all means, refer to improvised C-4 books to learn more about this fun hobby.
'Oh, and the anhydrous ammonia isn't exactly free of regulation -- the DEA cares about that one, because it can be used in methamphetamine and MDA production.'
Yeah. When I say regulated I am talking about the manufacture and sale. The DEA isn't really hassling the distribution chain, they are monitoring the end purchasers. Buy the wrong combination of crap and you'll be harassed with a DEA raid. Nevermind that for every meth 'lab' (read kid in his basement with a nose ring, not scientist with a white coat) they raid there are several dozen innocent people who just bought the wrong stuff raided.
'That's funny, seeing as how we're waging the war in a mannor completely unsuited towards keeping oil supplies up.'
Who said anything about keeping oil supplies up? You seem to have this crazy idea if the war is about oil its about protecting the interests of america in oil. The war isn't to let you keep your SUV. The war is for the benefit of the oil companies not the consumer.
'and conducted between equal parties'
Bzzt you just failed. A free market is a market with no government regulation or intervention. Economically speaking everyone starts equal (in a mythical free market world, in the real world some are born rich, others are born poor) but the moment someone is able to manipulate the market in a way that gives them more wealth than others they wield more economic power.
A free market is economic anarchy. The natural result is the strong (wealthy) exploiting the weak (the other 99%). As someone else pointed out, we technically don't have a free market anymore. I would like to remind those people that we don't have any anarchies anymore either.
A true free market is akin to anarchy in the economic world. After all, that is what anarchy is, a lack of regulation. The results are the same, the strong utilize their power to exploit the weak. Because they are strong, the only ones they must placate are those who are also strong. The weak take what terms they are given because they have no choice.
Since we are talking about an economy, the strong is the wealthy. It's beside the point but before someone points out strength and wealth being the same thing I would like to remind them of feudal europe. The strong (the lords) could take the wealth of merchants at will.
'there's so many conditions and laws on employment, it's no where near a free market'
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Employment isn't entirely a free market now but it used to be. The cold and cruel conditions that killed workers left and right while failing to pay them a livable wage are the reason employment is regulated now.
'The fertilizer bombs haven't made it any less available.'
It can still be had but you are crazy if you think its not less available.
'the decline is more connected to rising use of anhydrous ammonia (which is cheaper).'
Because of the increased regulation of Ammonium Nitrate.
'right now, it's made with fossil fuels, though that could change in the future.'
There is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels in and of itself. If using fossil fuels is cheaper then have at it. So long as the fertilizer can be cheaply made from renewable sources with existing technology the resulting crops remain a realistic renewable choice.
'it's an energy cost that has to be accounted for in determining whether the biofuel is energy positive and by how much'
If you mean the energy required to produce the fertilizer you are correct. The actual energy stored in the fertilizer becomes part of the energy stored in the plant mass. Particularly nitrogen fertilizer since if I remember correctly it converts entirely into plant mass without byproducts. Actually, the only byproduct of plant growth that I know of is oxygen. Conviently, oxygen is also a form of stored energy that is useful to humans.
if you think a free market is something other than the wealthy screwing the poor it is you who is delusional.
'which is made from atmospheric N2 + H2 from fossil fuel sources (mostly natural gas, but also oil and coal to some extent)'
That would seem relevant until you realize that we can readily derive ammonium nitrate from renewable sources, including urine.
Ammonium nitrate also isn't the cheapest source of nitrogen available to farmers. It isn't used nearly as widely as it was a decade ago. Something to do with making fertilizers bombs.
'Why not charge military expenses to the existence of religious insanity?'
Religious insanity is the farse being used to justify a war that really has nothing to do with religious fanatics and everything to with oil.
'Why not add the cost of building roads to the price of oil?'
Because roads are more appropriately added to the cost of using rubber tires. Regardless of what type of fuel we use we will need to use roads until we come up with a solution that is superior to rubber tires.
'How about the cost of educating future oil company employees'
The market takes care of this. Oil companies have to pay those employees based upon supply and demand, if that doesn't amount to enough to pay for their education then Oil comapanies will have to adjust their pay scales.
'or feeding them until they join the oil company'
Somehow I think they would be eating regardless of what field they went into.
'This type of ethanol works great in places like Brazil because they make it out of sugar cane'
If we didn't have ridiculous subsidies in place to allow american sugar plantations to compete we would pay the real price for sugar and could probably do the same.
He hid his credibility along with his identity. It is a self-correcting situation. A major CEO disparaging another company might actually attract an audience, this is a public figure with some sort of reputation.
His alter ego is basically the equivelent of an AC and his statements must stand on their own. The only way the comments would make a difference is if they ring true with others reading the posts. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter who is saying it.
nah, you'd just put them in all the same box. That data still has to be stored somewhere.
'So, if someone comes in with a laundry list,'
If you don't want a laundry list then don't put up a job posting that smacks of laundry list mentality. If you list 10 very specific technologies that your candidate must be proficient in then I will list every one of them on my resume guaranteed. After all, you have already told me you won't consider a candidate unless they list all of those things.
For example, it is very reasonable to list 'Experience with backup technologies and mechanical tape drives.' But you should expect a laundry list back if you listed a specific program, drive, or version of a program. If you understand backup schemes and how tape drives operate then the actual software used to perform the function really doesn't matter.
'We are much more impressed by someone who simply says "I don't know" than someone who tries to bullshit us.'
No doubt, but the tech world does push people to this. Ignorant employers or performing general onsite service is essentially sales and requires selling your customer on the idea that if you don't know it, nobody does.
'Good lord I feel like I just wrote a thesis.'
I hear you. Thats why I will refrain from a point by point response and just respond to what I think is the meat of your post.
'Whether you intend it or not, it comes off as "Yes you're a horribly broken and unnatural freak of nature, but it's ok. It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you. Don't worry though, I don't hate you."'
How can my post 'come off as' anything? Either I said it or I didn't. It is inappropriate to read things into my statements, if I meant 'x' then I would say 'x'.
I think we have fundementally different views of the world. You are attempting to place emotional emphasis on statements in a way that doesn't even make sense to me. For instance, 'horribly broken'. I never said anything of the sort. I did say broken but someone with high blood pressure or a cold is broken. I really don't have any 'feelings' on the subject at all. I don't find broken functions to be an emotional issue. If I had atheletes foot and you pointed out that you viewed people with athletes foot as broken I wouldn't be offended. I certainly wouldn't view you as having said I was 'horribly broken' but rather just indifferently stating a factual point. Another example is 'unnatural freak of nature'. I don't believe in freaks of nature. I don't view those who are different from myself as freaks. Maybe you aren't self concious because of people treating you as a freak, maybe it is YOU who are intolerate of those different from yourself and therefore view someone pointing out differences as attacking.
'It just means that you serve no useful function and society and the human race would be better off without you.'
I never said anything even vaguely resembling this. I believe the only KNOWN purpose of the species is to survive and perpetuate itself. The most obvious way of doing this is to breed. That is neither an implication nor a statement that those who can't (or don't) breed are useless or worse a burden.
'It's just plain dishonest when you try to seem tolerant'
I don't try to seem anything. This entire discussion is for your benefit. I also wouldn't describe myself as tolerant. Indifferent is a better word. Homosexuals (as a group) and homosexuality isn't really something I consider an important issue.
'then immediately turn around and say that it's on the same level as a deformity'
I don't have negative feelings about people with deformities so I fail to see the point. Deformities cause the impairment of some function. I could have said bad teeth for example and the point would be the same. I chose deformity because it is a physical flaw that one is born with. How 'horrible' the impairment is something that varies individually.
'it's only because enough people have rallied to it's defense that it hasn't yet died the death it deserves.'
I never said anything of the sort. I did say that having a sexual preference that causes them not to mate and have offspring would effectively result in the genes not being selected in the long term. How is that offensive? It's factual.
If that is what you were referring to then I either miswrote or you misread. I didn't say anything about people rallying to its defense, I said that the anti-homosexuality movement is what has led to the spread of homosexuality. I didn't explain my reasoning though. It is the gay bashers and bible freaks who have caused homosexuals to be afraid of living a lifestyle in accordance with their sexual preferences/orientation. This has led to marriage to women and having children despite the fact that homosexuals aren't attracted to women. I also certainly never said anything homosexuality deserving death.
'Don't worry though, I don't hate you.'
Isn't that why we are having this conversation? You have decided I am gay bashing? Of course, if I don't hate gays, then I am merely stating my opinion and not bashing at all.
'Er, well, since I'm bisexual
'Males are aware about which other males are attractive because they need to know who is a threat and who isn't in the stakes for mating with the opposite sex.
To say males can't tell which other males are attractive is most disingenuous and does not match with normal day to day experience.'
Nonsense, males have their own pecking order and it has nothing to do with physical attraction. How do you determine when another man is a threat in the mating game? Easy, you watch the ladies. At no point do men need to be attracted to other men.
'Yeah. A whole lotta confidence in your own sexuality I'm seeing there.'
Sorry I'm dense. Your post implies there was something there that showed a lack of confidence. Connect the dots for me, where was it?
I believe homosexuality is caused or at least agitated by hormone deficiencies therefore I must be afraid I am gay? That is an impressive stretch.
'Contrary to what most homophobes would have you believe, it is possible for a man to find another man to be good looking WITHOUT being sexually attracted to him.'
It's not even possible for a man to find a woman to be good looking without being sexually attracted to them at some level.
'You must have a fair degree of self-loathing then (assuming you're male) every time you look in the mirror.'
I didn't say I loathed men, I said they weren't pleasant to look at.
'If sexual orientation is a pure function of hormonal balance, why do people undergoing hormone therapy not exhibit wild changes in sexual preference and why do adolescents not vary their preferences from one day to the next? '
Because those on hormone therepy either already have a reversed sexual preference, are taking more of their gender's predominent hormone, or have the levels of hormone carefully regulated. Aside from that, human beings do have an intellect as well. If you have urges that conflict with what you have always desired you aren't going to jump on a table and start dancing and singing showtunes.
'You seem to be trying to imply again that straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone that clearly make them big burly masculine men, not at all like those wussy queers.'
No, I'm saying that SOME straight men are just gushing out torrents of testosterone. I know it is easier to debate if you take every comment I made about people and attempt to turn it into some sort of blanket statement. Unfortunately for you, I don't generally use any blanket statements and even when I use phrasing to a blanket effect it is usually a slip and not what I meant. We live in a complex world, there are exceptions to everything. There are billions of people, exceptions could include millions.
You can claim that homosexuality is a choice and I would agree that it is possible to choose it. However, a homosexual can usually be spotted on the subway wearing a formal business suit. It isn't about simply physical size, there are plenty of skinny straight guys and there are bulky gay guys. Even a homosexual won't dispute that, its called gaydar. It isn't a perfect system, you will have false positives but there is a distinction that can be detected without concious consideration. There is something physical and innate that most homosexuals are born with. If you would claim that it isn't a hormonal imbalance that makes homosexuals feminine and attracted to men; so be it. I'm not married to the theory. I'm open to other possibilities.
'Well, typically a hormonal imbalance actually is "bad" in the sense that it changes the normal functioning of the body.'
Yes, and so is eating fast food.
'So if you're suggesting that every man I've known that has made some comment about the attractiveness, or unattractiveness as the case more often is, of another male is bisexual or gay, I'm not sure how it helps your argument that male-male attraction is abnormal because that criterion would select for just about all of them.'
You seem to have an obsession with normal vs abnormal. EVERYONE IS ABNORMAL in numerous respects. Hell, lets get the cat out of the bag, I'd venture that MOST men have had incestrial thoughts at some point and had desires to have sexual relations with underage females! That would make MOST men abnormal! Oh my!
That said. We are talking about finding someone attractive, not unattractive. Attractive requires a level of attraction. Unattractive is a term that can be used to describe those that are neutral to you or something ugly that repels you. Seeing a fat plumbers crack repels me. Seeing someone with a gross disformity repels me. I do not see men as a sex object and therefore do not have the ability to judge how attractive they are, therefore they are all unattractive to me. Seeing a clothed male stirs no more feeling of attraction in me than seeing a phone or sidewalk. Sorry, that is just how it is.
You suggest this is some sort of result of a rigid anti-gay movement damaging me psychologically. I suppose it is possible but that seems a strange view. After all, while I have nothing against homosexuals (and have very close friends who were homosexual), I still don't think anyone could claim homosexuality is a natural state for a healthy adult with neither a damaged psyche nor a chemical imbalance of any sort. Humans are designed to reproduce and homosexuals can not reproduce. It may take awhile (amusingly BECAUSE the anti-gay mentality has caused homo
'I guess you don't watch football (neither U.S. "football" nor male European "soccer"), male basketball, male baseball, and so on.'
Nope.
'Almost no war movies (there are few with women roles),'
I watch movies to be entertained by the story and events, not to see the people. I read books with male characters as well. I don't freak out in locker rooms and I've showered with 30 other guys before.
Not preferring to see naked guys does not mean I am incapable of living in a world that has other males in it.
'Save your apparent disgust for real problems.'
Disgust is not a choice. Either I find something disgusting or not. I find the idea of having relations with other men disgusting, get over it. I enjoy eating escargot, many find that disgusting; I don't particularly care. Why do you care what I find disgusting?
'By the way, you talk about hormonal deficiencies.'
We are not hermaphrodites, nor capable of asexual reproduction. Our sex drives are powered entirely by hormones (mainly testosterone and estrogen). Therefore any hormone combination that does not lead to desiring the opposite sex is an imbalance. Now, if you do desire the opposite sex and use members of the same gender in the same manner as masterbation then that is something else now isn't it?
There is nothing bad about having a hormonal imbalance, everyone spends their teenage and adolescence in a state of hormonal imbalance and females are constantly in a state or hormonal imbalance from the time they are 12 until they complete menopause. Many straight men have an excess of testoterone with shrunken testicles and bald heads.
Perhaps you don't like the idea because while it is something homosexuals are born with, it would make them 'abnormal'. Apparently my gay sensitivity courses were a waste of time because I don't care about making people feel normal. So far I haven't met any of these mythical 'normal' people and I am not about assure someone their behavior is 'normal'.
I don't care if you are gay, I don't care if anyone is gay. Be gay, marry one another, live life. I don't especially care. Provided you aren't into PDA that would make me uncomfortable we can even be friends and hang out. If you hit on me I won't respond in a violent manner. Will I find it disgusting? Probably, but no more disgusting than if an extremely unattractive female hit on me.
Back to the topic at hand. Straight guys couldn't tell you which guy is supposed to be attractive. We have no clue, because we aren't even slightly attracted. Females on the hand can tell when other females are attractive (although they have different tastes). This concludes the basis for my theory that all females are subconciously bi. Therefore, attractive females being naked makes for nice scenery for all.
Contrary to what most homosexuals would have you believe, it is possible to both find male on male relations disgusting AND be confident in your own sexuality.
Personally, I couldn't care less about what others with hormone deficiencies do. But I don't especially enjoy seeing male forms clothed let alone nude. There are comparable views. A greasy pile of feces, slugs, cockroaches, etc. I'd rather not surround myself with these unappealing things.
Yes, and every other male. By definition, you are attracted to everyone you find attracted. I have one hell of an ego but even I don't turn myself on.
'Turnabout is fair play after all.'
Not in my world. In my world I get to have my cake and eat it too. Besides, there's no such thing as an attractive male.
I would like to nominate you as my vice president. Clearly, we share the same ideal and values.
'Even if it's benign'
Thats just it, we don't all agree on what is benign. I don't trust the government to decide for me and quite frankly don't consider the government to be benign. I'm not merely afraid of a change in colors in the future, the decision making government of today is stocked almost exclusively with dirty, corrupt, lying, weasels.
'All attractive people'
Blanket statements like that only show ignorance. You must qualify the remark. I'll help.
All attractive females *should* be legally required to stay naked on warm days because they have nothing to hide.