Dewey wrote a book!

[Renauda]

@Aqua-Letifer

I’ll grant you that they suck at formulating and articulating public policy.

At least 9 out of 10 French citizens would have classified themselves as God-fearing in between beheadings.

Should come as no surprise. It was a time when it was inconceivable to most, save Voltaire and perhaps a couple of other philosophes, that God might not be or never was to begin with.

[Tom-K]

This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.

[Copper]

@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

the most interesting and thought provoking threads

It has too many words.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

… I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on…

Seems obviously false.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

… I'm aware of all the private gossiping that's always gone on…

Seems obviously false.

Granted, the sheer volume is difficult to keep up with.

[Renauda]

@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.

Indeed it certainly reinforces each poster’s personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also, by and large, of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.

[Tom-K]

@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.

Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.

That's why we are all here.

[Klaus]

@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

Do pedophiles have character issues?

It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).

No, you have your boundary wrong.

The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.

Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation. Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.

[Jolly]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.

Behind a bedroom door? Probably, although I thought of the examples of where "rough sex" between two consenting adults ends in injury or death.

But this is not just behind bedroom doors. Homosexuals are a very vocal and active political segment. They want this rule changed, this law enacted, that law repealed. As such, they are trying to mold public policy and laws.

I find that many of the things they are currently pushing, are not good for society.

[Renauda]

@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

This is one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads ever posted on TNCR.

Indeed it certainly reinforces each posters personal prejudices towards one thing or another. It is also by and large of zero consequence beyond bordering on the absurd.

That's why we are all here.

Well, it’s certainly not for the coffee.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Dewey wrote a book!:

not for the coffee.

Or the coughed-on.

[Renauda]

@George-K

Perhaps, but if they were concerned they ought have been wearing a mask.

[89th]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Judge people by their character, not by their sexual preferences.

Ironically, sexual preferences used to be a character issue not that long ago.

Do pedophiles have character issues?

It's been the easiest argument when I mention that homosexuality is a form of a sexual preference disorder. Yes... a disorder. Similar to other physical or mental disorders, and not to be directly judged (seriously). But being attracted to the same sex is the milder version on the spectrum of sexual urge disorders, the more extreme side of the spectrum including attraction to children, animals, and family. I'm not equating them, but I do think there is a spectrum of sexual deviation from the standard (attraction to an unrelated adult of the opposite sex... you know, how we survive as a species).

No, you have your boundary wrong.

The boundary is at "consenting adults". It's nobody's business what consenting adults do with each other.

Something is a disorder if something is not alright with it. If something causes pain, for instance. There's no victim in homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and it exists in basically all higher species. Just because it is not conducive to procreation does not mean anything. You could also call a woman on contraceptives s "disorder". 99% of all sex is not for procreation.

I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).

Let them have their fun. It's none of your business.

So you're good with a 40 year old man banging his 63 year old mom? That's within your normal boundary?

Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lol

[Klaus]

@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:

I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).

In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?

All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?

Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").

It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.

[bachophile]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

Leaving this here without comment, let you folks fight it out.

But I don’t think anything written will convince anyone out of their own convictions.

[Doctor Phibes]

Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.

[Klaus]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

[Axtremus]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

Like most cat people have petted a dog at some point.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

it occurs so frequently in nature

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.

I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.