kvnchrist

No one can debate truth, but they can debate facts.

I am speaking of a type of one world government, but far into the future to which I would hope that capitalism would be a thing of the past and materialism would be non-existent. Social structures would not be reliant on what you possessed but how much you had to contribute to society. Scientists, Doctors, teachers and academics would be more highly prized than football players and education would be the highest priority with research following close behind. I think this addiction to physical prowess has lead us to idolize people who rarely do anything to make life more bearable and the massive incomes these people are getting is causing a debilitating effect on our youth. I don't know the percentages, but I would wager there are more kids out there interested in the NBA than Chemistry and physics, because the later isn't as glorified and takes less work to prepare themselves for. Then you have the costs associated with education as opposed to a scout coming to see you throw a ball through a metal ring. As far as culture goes, I was thinking more along the way of the differences between cultures would be so intermixed with one another that the sheer amount of diversity would amalgamate all cultures into one homogenous mass, thereby dissolving yet another area of possible contention. Social and cultural traditions would not necessarily end, but would be prioritized so as to gain the best benefit to as many as possible, but yet celebrated by all who wish to indulge themselves, without the prejudice of others. society would have a better understanding of these traditions and be able to acknowledge their importance to those who find them vital.

I've always been one that thinks international borders, National currency, Different languages are a thing that is destined to be eradicated in the future. It just seems that such things were important when major distances were an impediment to travel and people were interested in national identities, it seems more to separate themselves from others and think they were somehow better or purer than other people. I think that culture is more about remembering where a people came from instead of where they are going and I really don't see it as of any benefit for the future. I mean with cooking styles and wardrobes spanning every style imaginable will be easily accessible, I really think that within a few hundred years, will culture be anything more than a gimmick to entrap tourists money. I'm thinking along the lines of a Star Trek world here, that is if people can get over themselves long enough to see the benefits of embracing others for who they are inside.

I've always felt that the rights of human beings are essential to everyone involved, not just those who are effected by this situation or that. I've heard people talk about this groups rights or that groups rights. I've seen every form of division known to man, separating the afflicted from the rest of society and I was wondering why those not effected by the intentional withholding rights of others don't defend these people as they would themselves. It seems to me that it would be in everyone's interest to have a society of equals, that work together for the common good of all. Are we so self important that we can't see the wrongness that begins with the systematic disfranchisement of those who live in our communities and under the same sky? Rights should not be designated by race, religion or affection and those who stand for the elimination of certain human beings should be confronted be the whole of that society, so that injustice can be reduced, if not eliminated. The one solitary question remains is when should society revoke or restrict these rights and what would be the basis for doing so. (age, maturity, criminal behavior)

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/18/21027965-mom-of-girl-charged-in-florida-bullying-suicide-arrested-on-child-abuse-charges?lite It seems the mother of the bully is up on charges of child abuse. I wonder how many other bullies have parents that abuse them and if that reality effects the actions of the bullies. I've heard that child abuse is hereditary, at times. Could this be the real issue here?

http://ecreativedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/223033_700b1.jpg

I find it funny that those who agree with the course the government is taking would think elected officials should be charged with trying to take down the government because they diligently worked to bring the issues to a head. I think if the Democrats had this much balls we wouldn't have went through two incredibly stupid wars. One we are still fighting and we are sending money to Pakistan so they can buy more ammo to shoot at our troops. If they'd have done that would the country be now, going through such a hard time, or would we have still had that revenue to prop us up enough to weather the crisis we've been going through the last 4-5 years. Personally, I think this is all about The Affordable care act that was a sissy move to begin with. This little horror still allows private insurance agencies and the Pharmaceutical companies to operate under the radar and in the future, with all their lobbyists and deep pockets they will be able to remove every benefit we have in this bill. They've effectively gutted parts of the safety net and have given special interest groups an easy out that have given the Republicans the ammo they needed to place fear in the hearts of the American people. They should have stood by their principles and given the country what it needed, which was a fully national healthcare system like most of the industrial countries have already. What pisses me off is the America, in it arrogant way didn't even ask for advise from the rest of the world, which has had national health care for a while now. I'm sure Canada would have been willing to give us the advantage of their experience. I mean, they have already the try and test phase and have discarded what failed and replaced it with what did. The one thing that the Dems did to shoot them in their own foot was to not put this into effect nationally and have everyone from the President on down to the drunk living in a box live under the same rules. What the hell difference is there between this policy and separate but equal laws in the 1960's south? Separate is not equal and if the elites aren't under the same system as the poor what's to guarantee the quality of the healthcare? If the Dems had done that, the right would have never been able to place a wedge between healthcare and the public and they damned sure would not have tried to close down the government. They would not have had the momentum that the Dems gave to them to even try something like this.

What is to be done with people like this, who out of sheer disdain harass a fellow human being to death. http://mashable.com/2013/10/15/bullying-teen-brags-facebook/

I've volunteered at many different forums. Starting from guild forums, gaming, more, university run forums (for career and stuffs), and an official forums run by a huge hardware store. I always stayed for long at each. The siggy is for fun only and I know how hard moderating can be, especially in a multi language forums and/or a professional community. It's not meant to offend anyone, if that's why you're quoting me. Now I'm not really sure on what we're actually debating in this thread. But I think I'm seeing an infraction coming for this unrelated post of mine :/ No debate to be had. I just saw something I've never seen before and was asking. Don't know about an infraction. None of my business. You have a great day.

Seeing your signature I was wondering just how much you know of moderating forums.

I found this on MSN. It defines the different areas of the populous that your link speaks about http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/53285236/#53285236

VAPID ****** BIGOT, indeed! Well with that interesting incite on what motivated this flood of unsubstantiated claims by and obvious Theist with a chip on his shoulder. I would ask the mods to please close and lock this thread before all this grandiose garbage turns into a real religious rant.

Well, I'm pretty much think that this has been talked out. The original topic is far away from the ending discussion and I think that ending discussion have been resolved long before the last posts were placed. I'm going to step out of this myself. Thank you.

Partisan crackpots have been boring the crap out of everybody for years. The biggest lies are usually told after the following statement " I think the American people think....." They hope they get by with using talking points that they've group tested for favorability and then do their best to manipulate those talking points to reflect their ideals. It's like listening to a telemarketer when your diner is getting cold. http://www.snakbloxapps.com/SnakBloxApp-Esquire/img/summary_minivan.jpg Click here for more on the Minivan Moderates and other segments on the ideological spectrum.http://www.snakbloxapps.com/SnakBloxApp-Esquire/img/fb_share.jpghttp://www.snakbloxapps.com/SnakBloxApp-Esquire/img/twitter_share.jpg http://www.snakbloxapps.com/SnakBloxApp-Esquire/img/emaillabel.jpg

No this is dedicated to Bethesda and this particular forum is dedicated to debates, which is what we are in now. Your arguments are opinions backed up by assumption which is why you've been asked continually to show any form of professional documentation to support your theories. Personally I've only seen an intense form of negativity in everything you've put forth which doesn't bode well for your objectivity. this again reenforces the desire for those reading you to see case studies that will legitimize your stance on these issues. You are the one claiming such lifestyles are unnatural and it is on you to legitimize your claims. The Dsm is set forth by the American Psychiatric Association and is a comprehensive reference to all mental illnesses recognized by established professionals and should very well be able to verify or invalidate your claims, which is why it has been brought up so often. I have seen nothing scientific about anything you've said and taxonomic re-branding indeed. Taxonomy (general), the practice and science (study) of classification of things or concepts, including the principles that underlie such classificationSuch branding as you call it is updated by professionals in the appropriate fields when new and more accurate information is revealed.

I think hate and the conscious effort to legitimize it is a mental disorder far worse than any form of sexual satisfaction. It has lead to more violence than any other emotion that man kind has ever witnessed. Sorry that I don't have any scientific studies to verify that but sense some of us seem to be speaking only from opinions, I thought I might add mine to the discussion.

Tried. Don't have a clue how to start one up.

People seem to forget at times that they are just as human as everyone else. That is both a compliment and also a designator of limitations. Those that don't understand this tend to burn themselves out, either by running from or running to their fellow man. This is where the term, "Physician heal or heel thyself becomes more than just a statement, but a need to preserve the person they are. (1) Heal meaning to be sure their needs are met, since a person who is unsupported in health only gets less stable if they continue without it. (2) Heel meaning to stop and take into account the successfulness of their attempts, since some ways of doing things are not only counterproductive, but also could be down right destructive. The main thing is that people anywhere need to know that they acknowledged for being here. They may not be appreciated and they might just be despised, but they need to know they are counted among those that have been, those that are and those that were. Ask yourself just why there are some here who act out and I would suggest that this is the way they can feel that they are being realized. This might be a little insane to some, since the logical way to most people would be to be inviting, but who says that humans were ever logical. We all suffer from our species need to be needed. I think the most useful method of recognition is also the least expensive to give. A simple hug, a smile and maybe a tear for the troubles we all go through.

I remember a line in one of the Star Trek episode Balance of power , where Dr. Mc Coy was talking to Capt. Kirk. He said, "In this galaxy, there's a mathematical probability of three million earth-type planets...and in all the universe, three million million galaxies like this one. And in all of that, and perhaps more, only one of each of us. Don't destroy the one named Kirk." This to me is a very profound statement because even in our time, this day, right now are we not struggling to place our ideas. our philosophies and our imprint on the sands of time. Is it because we feel ourselves so important in the history of this world we call Earth or is it because we want to be remembered as the single spot of light that brought illumination to those we cared for and the ideals we thought important? Are we so enamored by the sound of us justifying our existence by defining who we are not or do we really have something to say? Is fighting the good fight becoming more important than the person doing the fighting and if so, are we not as lost as we perceive those we oppose are? Where in this life is there room for the most important of the beings that occupy it and who indeed are these people? Are these the people surrounding us or the person being surrounded? We make so much time in this life for those we feel important, but what time do we set aside for that one individual that provides the feelings that deem these people important? What time do we have for ourselves and who gives us the feeling that we are important, as well? This is what a hug means to me. Not a strong hug, not a weak hug, but a sincere hug. The one that means the celebration of a single human being. That human being is ourselves and that person deserves to be appreciated.

I would think the reason that one age doesn't identify with another is the differences in experiences, which is fairly normal across the board. I would think the outspokenness that comes with more open attitudes would be more likely the reason older people of any sexual orientation would have to separate themselves from the younger generations. Your use of the term experimentation seems to assume that those who have absolutely no desire for sexual relationships with their own gender would somehow want to try it. Sexual relations are not a new taste sensation at Taco Bell. The desire must be there to facilitate experimentation. As long as there are people within that increase that have feelings for their own gender. Being gay is not a question of age, IQ or any other excuse that can be imagined. It is and has always been an active part of reality. Just because the quote/unquote polite society has lost their ability control the narrative, doesn't mean that the sexuality lives of others have increased or decreased. It just means the repression of others has lessened.

I think it’s doubtful that there is a large genetic component to bisexuality (in contrast to homosexuality). Men seem to be gay/straight, or lie about their sexuality, but I suspect that changing cultural norms are opening straight men to bisexuality. Homosexuals seem to have really strong opinions about "bisexuals" but I'm not sure how useful or grounded in reality those opinions are. But feel free to elaborate on your “clean slate” theory, I'm always interested in theories on the subject. Homosexuality has always been an extreme choice attracting only 3-5% of the population, but based on the passivity and indifference to sexual differences among millenials I expect that at least some transient experimentation will become more common. I'm not sure of any quality statistics that track this over time. You have seen the seeds for this in the steady de-emphasization of sex differences over the past few generations; the contemporary marriage is a rather sexless-looking partnership in which both spouses pursue careers, postpone children (which really brings out the differences between the sexes), and thus stay in a kind of culturally androgynous path far longer than previously, when sexual differentiation became pronounced in adolescence and the types of careers that men and women prepared for. No doubt this is behind the support for gay marriage even among ostensibly heterosexual young adults, the interest in defending transsexuals (which are an even tinier minority), and the anti-bullying push (which is a defense of passivity--note that fighting back against bullies is never brought up in this context, that would require aggressiveness which is a mysterious quality to them). The main drivers then are the passivity produced by social anxiety and the rise of a basically androgynous self-image. I expect more cases of confused orientation to result. I seriously doubt if anything exterior of the person themselves has any factor on wither you like men, women or both.The easing cultural norms only open up the ability to have an open dialog where these things can be discussed. If the person feels more comfortable to experiment, it is to experiment on something already taken root inside the person, which manifests itself as attraction. This opening up theory you have seems fairly close to the ludicrous question of if gay people are made or born. That whole frame of mind is offensive as Hell to me, because it plays on the idea that love something that can be manufactured. I also take exception to your use of the term extreme choice. There is no choice in who you are attracted to. It is either there or not there and none of these are extreme by the standards of the person feeling them. I too would be careful about the percentages that you use when dealing with sexual attractions, you never know how many are still in a state off denial or simply afraid. Finally, I think the rising support for non traditional guidelines is much more due to society seeing the emptiness of old, tired, outlandish stereotypical claims from the self-righteous fear mongers. People have grown tired of the assumptions of those who claim moral superiority, but have proven themselves as little more than hypocrites and Charltons. Normalcy has become ever more inclusive and the world has not suffered for it. In fact the world seems to suffer more by those who wish to restrict and repress human nature and the biggest example of that can be seen beyond the secular divide.

A friend of mine just gave me this link. This might be the same story and it might not. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/Amelia/when-your-7-year-old-son-announces-im-gay_b_1277910.html Look at the authors title below her picture and the fact that the child is already familiar with gays being with guys and women being with women. This in itself means nothing. I am pleased that he is being raised in a family that doesn't teach hate, but I am concerned that he is too young to understand the differences between male-male friendship and affectionate attraction of a sexual nature, which is love. Being around people of the same sex and being together is a familiar site to him, which is fine until you make the assumption that he completely understands what love is and divulge it to the world via "The Huffington Post." The entire article seems suspect to me. I doubt if the kid said he liked girls that a strait mother would make such an extravaganza about it. I am thoroughly skeptical of her aims here. I don't think it has anything to do with the nurturing of a child!

I wanted to pick up on this if it's ok. The highlighted section is astonishing to me. Many people really have been completely robbed of their past and identity, even over the span of their lives. If in 1975 or even 1985, you suggested to any liberal you could find that the gays wouldn't stop until they had gay marriage, they'd have laughed at you. I can distinctly remember back when homosexuality was disdained and shunned even by the Left. And yet, not only here we are, every leftist you could care to speak to about the topic will be indignant at any suggestion that this was not a natural, rational thing and always has been. Despite this, most normal people are still ambivalent about homosexuality. Gay rights have barely made headway even in a wealthy country like Japan where all sorts of deviant sexual fetishes are honored and pornography is displayed in public newspapers. I don't think the case has been made very convincingly that our modern reversal of these traditions has produced a better world; I rather think that our liberalism is itself a symptom of a mentally weak people whose culture has become exhausted by overpopulation and complexity and is now very, very disordered. Society has never had an honest discussion about homosexuality. We've gone from a situation where homosexuality was extremely taboo and regarded as sinful, destructive and perverse to one where criticism of homosexuality is extremely taboo and regarded as sinful (i.e. a crime against p.c.), destructive (to our appreciation of diversity!) and perverse (in that it suggests unrecognized, gay tendencies, pathological backwardness, etc...). It's opened up a far better world than we had when good measure of our citizens were kept in a perpetual state of fear, having them live a lie that hurt the loved ones they had, when the lie was revealed. The reason why our society has never had an open and honest debate about any kind of sex, outside the considered norm is because the moralist would not let it happen. Even now, they use the excuse of not wanting to describe gay relationships with their children. Many are in denial of their own kids sexual activities. They were against any form of sexual education, because it was quote/unquote their responsibilities to talk to their children about that, and the result was that they never talked at all about it. Gay marriage has not made the world safer because it was not meant to make the world safer for anyone except gay people and that, thankfully has happened. The right can't have their cake and eat it too, anymore and frankly, the left can't shove their ideas down to throats of the populous, either. Change comes from within society, when society wants to change and not before. People, like these who posted this picture isn't happy with the pace and they can very well create a backlash of resistance, even with those who are gay if they start throwing children underneath the bus.

There is no gay agenda. That's just a conspiracy theory by far right wackos. They can't comprehend that the world has evolved past their Betty Crocker/Barney Fife/ Leave it to beaver existence. Society has taken a look at their morality and found it, small minded, hypocritical and obsolete. They have to invent a conspiracy against them to account for their failure to control the narrative. If not then they will have to concede that they are no longer in charge, and that's frightening for people who have systematically repressed so many groups it isn't even funny. That's why they are so adamant about getting the White House back. They're probably afraid that those they've kept down would return the favor unto them. Turn about is fair play, but I doubt those, now in the seat of power will do anything other than to make their presence know. Like Eddy Murphy said in 24 hours, "There's a new Sheriff in town"! I'm just hoping he won't fizzle out after the midterm elections