|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:18 pm
alteregoivy CH1YO alteregoivy CH1YO The confusion with polygamy was introduced for reasons that can't but have been impish wickedness. ...How well do you know English? Seriously, you make zero sense. Somewhat better than yourself, it would appear. Then can you explain to me what "can't but have been impish wickedness" means? It sounds like something out of a spam e-mail. I would argue that, no, you do not know English better than I do. You ignore rules of grammar on a regular basis to string random long words together, pretending that they make sense. Well, they don't make sense and create a lot of confusion in every single thread I have seen you join in this guild. I don't know if you are being pretentious on purpose just for this guild, or if this is really the way you speak. If it is, you had better "dumb" your language down, or you will never be understood very well. Certainly; it means, as stated, that "[the confusion] can not have been [introduced] for any reasons other than imp like wickedness." Your argument fails on the grounds that my statements are, as you should otherwise be aware, are syntactically fine as they only offer one legitimate interpretation. Perchance you are an American and as such unaware of literature, where from you might have means to exercise your potentials?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:44 pm
CH1YO PrometheanSet Its actually a known hazard in Anthropology some of your "objects of study" will make jokes at your expense. Bedouin groups are known for telling unwary Anthropologists that they are to be welcomed with this high honor, the special honored soup - eyeball soup. So the Anthropologist, not wanting to be rude, will eat it - meanwhile the Bedouin are hiding behind a tent, trying to contain their laughter to a level where they won't get caught. The only defense for it is to observe how that people joke before directly interacting with the people, or at least accounting that pattern in your analysis. This is where her methodology fell short. Filthy Arabs still cannot influence the simple fact that doctor Mead was fully and properly informed of the nature and purpose of anthropology as is the pertinent issue here. That sounds like quite the racist little comment! That horrible display of ethnocentrism aside, Mead didn't know the *means* to accomplish that purpose. CH1YO PrometheanSet Pops would be amused at your presumptuousness. You would tell him how to live, just like any proselytizer, and rationalize it away as something based in objectivity. The example of the Mormon polygamist wasn't that Joseph invented polygamy, but that his concept of God decrees that marriage should be conducted in this way - which will involve love for all of his partners. The neuroscientist? That was an analogy. You behavior is consistent with someone that would try to use Phrenology, a laughable pseudoscience, to try to refute modern Neuroscience. Pops is far too easily amused, is he in some way markedly deficient of character or wit? That fails to address the point that monogamy is senior to polygamy. Certainly there are people who favour polygamous relationships or that will even hold claim to polyamory but claims of vested interest hold little water. Perish the thought- they are both worth next to nothing in the human sciences. Such is the nature of being fundamentally the same discipline. You still have yet to back up your assertions. I hope you don't ever have a brain tumor, lest you have to thank a Neuroscientist for saving your life. I haven't seen anything that proves monogamy as senior to anything except for your lifespan. You seem to be aimed at discrediting much in this thread, and I'm happy to ask you to show me. PrometheanSet You might need a Dictionary, sweetie. The baboons and elephants? They're there as an example of polyamorous behavior in the Animal Kingdom, outside of human social constraints. It's perfectly natural. Human social constraints being natural and the apparence of monogamous relationships in the animal kingdom aside, one cannot have polyamory without amor; the dictionary fails in it's oversimplification.Well, then argue with the one who wrote it. However, "love" these days means more than just an emotion. It's used often interchangeably with sexuality - hence the ambiguity. Modern confusion or not, I'm not going to argue with you about "the dictionary is wrong!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:30 am
PrometheanSet That sounds like quite the racist little comment! That horrible display of ethnocentrism aside, Mead didn't know the *means* to accomplish that purpose. Not at all, when from Arabia one is Arab, when one spends one's life grubbing about in the dust one is filthy. That Mead was bound by practical methodology is still not relevant to the discussion, she was well aware of the purpose of her study. PrometheanSet You still have yet to back up your assertions. I hope you don't ever have a brain tumor, lest you have to thank a Neuroscientist for saving your life. I haven't seen anything that proves monogamy as senior to anything except for your lifespan. You seem to be aimed at discrediting much in this thread, and I'm happy to ask you to show me. Neuroscience is impotent. Whilst it is nice to show, say, the degradation of brain tissue or fundamentally random activity it cannot solve any problems. Brain imagery techniques in medicine are of course useful but neurosurgery is quite removed from neuroscience. It fundamentally has to come first, the institution of marriage cannot have been born as polygamous. If it is born of accumulating wives then one and from the start first must be monogamous; the idea that a single male in primitive society be required to at once marry no more and no less than, for instance, three females is far too absurd to ponder and the third option that it might be born out of a primitive system like a gorilla's harem falls down on the fact that there would be no grounds or precedent for a marriage at all. PrometheanSet Well, then argue with the one who wrote it. However, "love" these days means more than just an emotion. It's used often interchangeably with sexuality - hence the ambiguity. Modern confusion or not, I'm not going to argue with you about "the dictionary is wrong!" Of course not. It is only proper to argue along my definition or, should you prefer, to accept my taking a clarified definition such as "love- where used correctly" or some such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:53 am
CH1YO Certainly; it means, as stated, that "[the confusion] can not have been [introduced] for any reasons other than imp like wickedness." Your argument fails on the grounds that my statements are, as you should otherwise be aware, are syntactically fine as they only offer one legitimate interpretation. Perchance you are an American and as such unaware of literature, where from you might have means to exercise your potentials? "One legitimate interpretation." Then why is it that in almost every thread you've joined, there have been mass confusion and offense gained from your posts? You're language sounds like it's from Middle English. No wonder people are confused. You are pretentious and a bigot. I am done with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:10 pm
alteregoivy CH1YO Certainly; it means, as stated, that "[the confusion] can not have been [introduced] for any reasons other than imp like wickedness." Your argument fails on the grounds that my statements are, as you should otherwise be aware, are syntactically fine as they only offer one legitimate interpretation. Perchance you are an American and as such unaware of literature, where from you might have means to exercise your potentials? "One legitimate interpretation." Then why is it that in almost every thread you've joined, there have been mass confusion and offense gained from your posts? You're language sounds like it's from Middle English. No wonder people are confused. You are pretentious and a bigot. I am done with you. Here here! I've been catching up on some threads here. In almost every instance, when CH1YO has joined the conversation, it has not only highjacked the thread and devloved into bickering and arguing over semantics, She (I think) has come across as pretentious and insulting. No matter how you try to justify it, "filthy Arab" in this context was an insult. Being able and willing to type your posts in rather archaic grammer does not make you smarter or more qualified than the rest of us. Please stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:45 pm
gorramKayna alteregoivy CH1YO Certainly; it means, as stated, that "[the confusion] can not have been [introduced] for any reasons other than imp like wickedness." Your argument fails on the grounds that my statements are, as you should otherwise be aware, are syntactically fine as they only offer one legitimate interpretation. Perchance you are an American and as such unaware of literature, where from you might have means to exercise your potentials? "One legitimate interpretation." Then why is it that in almost every thread you've joined, there have been mass confusion and offense gained from your posts? You're language sounds like it's from Middle English. No wonder people are confused. You are pretentious and a bigot. I am done with you. Here here! I've been catching up on some threads here. In almost every instance, when CH1YO has joined the conversation, it has not only highjacked the thread and devloved into bickering and arguing over semantics, She (I think) has come across as pretentious and insulting. No matter how you try to justify it, "filthy Arab" in this context was an insult. Being able and willing to type your posts in rather archaic grammer does not make you smarter or more qualified than the rest of us. Please stop. Oh dear, just look at me. I'm using my basic english (still learning) and I'm so ungrammatical to most of you all (probably) and I too have some problems understanding some of Ch1yo's posts, but I believe what she says is not absurd, actually I find many of her opinions quite mature. It's a discussion forum right? So let's discuss, use arguments and such stuff instead of... you know (haha, I don't have the proper word xd )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:06 pm
No I understand what everything she says, I just don't care for the way she says it. And some of her statements seem like they have no purpose but to be inflamatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:50 pm
i believe there are gradations of sexuality.
so let's say ultrafeminine would be a 1 and ultramasculine a 10,
then bisexuality (and maybe asexuality, which might be trickier to place on that scale) would be 5.
with that system, it's all perfectly natural, and nothing is abnormal; it all has a place.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kinsey-scale.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:00 pm
chessiejo i believe there are gradations of sexuality. so let's say ultrafeminine would be a 1 and ultramasculine a 10, then bisexuality (and maybe asexuality, which might be trickier to place on that scale) would be 5. with that system, it's all perfectly natural, and nothing is abnormal; it all has a place. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kinsey-scale.htm I'm not sure how this defintion works here. Yes, someone can be ultrafeminine or ultramasculine but what does that have to do with sexual preference? Someone could be both ultrafeminine and bisexual. And the actual gender of the person in question could be male or female. How does this make them a 5 on this scale? Sexual identity and sexual preference are connected but not the same. Perhaps define you terms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:14 am
CalledTheRaven chessiejo i believe there are gradations of sexuality. so let's say ultrafeminine would be a 1 and ultramasculine a 10, then bisexuality (and maybe asexuality, which might be trickier to place on that scale) would be 5. with that system, it's all perfectly natural, and nothing is abnormal; it all has a place. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kinsey-scale.htm I'm not sure how this defintion works here. Yes, someone can be ultrafeminine or ultramasculine but what does that have to do with sexual preference? Someone could be both ultrafeminine and bisexual. And the actual gender of the person in question could be male or female. How does this make them a 5 on this scale? Sexual identity and sexual preference are connected but not the same. Perhaps define you terms? Lol, any of you guys ever seen the movie "But I'm a Cheerleader!" ? Awesome, wonderful movie. I think it's my favorite of all time. Anyway, it's about a gay camp (you know, they kind where they send gay kids to "fix" them?), basically, and one of the sad/funny things is that some of the people there are very much straight; they just happen to seem to fall into the stereotype of what homosexuals act/look like. Ever heard the term "lipstick lesbian"? It's basically the name for an ultra feminine lesbian. Really seemingly straight, but not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:19 pm
I'm physically attracted to girls.
I am not psychologically attracted to them. That is, I don't relate well with other women. I don't "get them" and have never fallen in love with one. I've only desired relationships with men.
It's weird.
I have no idea what sort of label you could slap on me. Technically bisexual but straight in practice? Eh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:48 am
Nebulance I don't think I've encountered someone who was harder on bisexuals because they can choose but it's a good question. Personally I don't think it's actually I choice either. If they're attracted to one individual over the other then I wouldn't call it a choice. Personally, I think the whole argument that "Gays have something wrong biologically" is ridiculous. Its an excuse some suburban mom came up with to explain her son/daughter wasnt gay/lesbian on purpose, he/she just couldnt help it. I was a normal little girl, with pink ribbons n tutus. Now I wear cargo pants, combat boots and pull my hair back with AXE... a.k.a. I dress kinda like a guy. I CHOSE how I look and who I like. I'm bi, but I prefer girls over guys any day. Im physically and emotionally attracted to girls, and I may say a guy is "hot" or something (I heart Greg Graffin) but I wouldnt wanna be with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 7:39 am
alteregoivy CalledTheRaven chessiejo i believe there are gradations of sexuality. so let's say ultrafeminine would be a 1 and ultramasculine a 10, then bisexuality (and maybe asexuality, which might be trickier to place on that scale) would be 5. with that system, it's all perfectly natural, and nothing is abnormal; it all has a place. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-kinsey-scale.htm I'm not sure how this defintion works here. Yes, someone can be ultrafeminine or ultramasculine but what does that have to do with sexual preference? Someone could be both ultrafeminine and bisexual. And the actual gender of the person in question could be male or female. How does this make them a 5 on this scale? Sexual identity and sexual preference are connected but not the same. Perhaps define you terms? Lol, any of you guys ever seen the movie "But I'm a Cheerleader!" ? Awesome, wonderful movie. I think it's my favorite of all time. Anyway, it's about a gay camp (you know, they kind where they send gay kids to "fix" them?), basically, and one of the sad/funny things is that some of the people there are very much straight; they just happen to seem to fall into the stereotype of what homosexuals act/look like. Ever heard the term "lipstick lesbian"? It's basically the name for an ultra feminine lesbian. Really seemingly straight, but not. I like the soundtrack for that movie but I prefer Imagine Me and You.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
