|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:37 am
Vague JoVo Vague *snaps* Oh no you di-n't. You like that one waaaaay too much.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:24 pm
JoVo [Q] Jovo: I'm stuck on them because of some bad juju. LOL. Okay. You'll note that I haven't mentioned my spiritual beliefs throughout this discussion once. Yet, as I think you know, I'm exceedingly devout. That's how a discussion of this sort should be carried. And where did I mention my beliefs? Instead of "Bad juju" I could've extended on my beliefs, but I didn't I said, "Unless you want to get into the whole spirit ordeal". Personally, I think spirits have enough scientific research following them to be real enough to talk about an "ordeal" without you tossing "ONOES! Not a religious debate!" onto me. That sounded a lot ruder than it was supposed to be. stressed You Q, you can't be genderqueer instead of bi because they aren't mutually exclusive. I'm genderqueer and pansexual, but pansexual instead of bi. Here's the conclusion, for your benefit: Bisexuals like males and females. Pansexuals like human beings of both genders and their intergenders. Is that clearer? When I meant instead of bi.. I meant something that really shouldn't be discussed here mixed with confusion. As far as making things clearer goes, as a generalization, yes it did. For me, it just made it worse. Considering the thread kind of devolved into "Well, what am I?" whining. Astri: Yes. Yes it is like that. Except more on me avoiding the whole issue(s) rather than dealing with it/them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:10 am
[Q] Astri: Yes. Yes it is like that. Except more on me avoiding the whole issue(s) rather than dealing with it/them. You know, I really think that's okay. Don't push yourself on the issues and just let it settle. There's nothing "wrong" with sticking with bi label. I didn't start refering to myself as pansexual until after I had dated someone genderqueer and had really been able to think about things with a clearer mind. It was no longer "OMG, what if???" It's not the reason I dated Zac, and I probably would have come to the same conclusion had I not, but it certainly helped. Identifying as bisexual doesn't mean you aren't open to dating trannies or those of alternate gender; it's mostly a different way of defining things. You should use whichever and whatever labels you feel most correctly define you. And you're allowed to give yourself time to transition, if that's what you decide. I can't tell you how many months my line was, "Well, I'm bi, but I think I might actually be more pansexual? I'm not sure."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:39 am
[Q] Personally, I think spirits have enough scientific research following them to be real enough. You could, but you'd be wrong. Spirits are far from conclusively proven. We're more certain that black holes exist than that spirits do, and that's saying something. Believing (and disbelieving) in spirits is still purely a matter of faith. Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:56 am
I think this guild sparks the most intelligent conversations I've ever heard on Gaia. I learn so much everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:40 pm
JoVo, EVPs, EMPs, Quijia, hauntings, possessions, orbs, photos, and cold spots aren't enough to make it "real enough" to say "If you want to get into that whole spirit thing"?
Surely Spirits are "real enough" to warrant that they have a distinct chance of existing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:03 pm
Nios I think this guild sparks the most intelligent conversations I've ever heard on Gaia. I learn so much everyday. 'Swhy I never leave. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:13 pm
There are some very bold characters here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:56 pm
[Q] JoVo, EVPs, EMPs, Quijia, hauntings, possessions, orbs, photos, and cold spots aren't enough to make it "real enough" to say "If you want to get into that whole spirit thing"? Ouija. And all of that is related. None of it is conclusively proven. Photos are sketchy, experiments are faulty, and none of any of it can be shown to be positively true. That is why you won't see discussions about the aura in Scientific American. I believe in all of the things you've mentioned, but I cannot agree with you because I also believe what Nietzsche says on the subject: Friedrich Nietzsche The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:28 pm
-bangs head against wall- Okay. Perhaps I am not voicing myself well enough. I'm not trying to say they exist, I'm trying to say they don't deal with belief in the fact that they were worthy of bringing up "Unless you want to get into that wandering spirit stuff". Or whatever. I'm not even understanding myself anymore. Ignore me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:05 pm
[Q] I'm not trying to say they exist, I'm trying to say they don't deal with belief in the fact that they were worthy of bringing up "Unless you want to get into that wandering spirit stuff". And I'm not saying they don't exist, what I'm saying is that it cannot be empirically proven that they exist, so including them in any discussion where they are not necessary brings in a great deal of other baggage that need not be there. Any mention of the soul in a discussion of this sort tends to complicate things. In general, you should want to minimize the amount of words you have to define. That's what I'm saying, and that's why I kept trying to keep God and the soul out of all of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:14 pm
You could always make a separate topic to discuss spirits and such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:23 pm
But it will just derail like this one did, and then more threads will be created to suit Vague's fancy which will derail and lead to more threads... And as the creator of this thread, I'd rather have it derailed then 50 new threads made from derailed threads. =p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:33 pm
But the new threads will interest other people to participate in the conversations. Currently people are missing out on this discussion because they think that you are still talking about panssexuals and bisexuals. There's no harm in new and interesting threads. I wouldn't consider this thread to have derailed but rather that it came to an end when all questions were answered as well as they could be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:47 pm
Yet we are still talking here. SOmething could be wrong with this picture! surprised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[Q]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/15/1f06246f41523_flip.png?t=1465986572_6.00_11)
