OMFG... just No... OMG...

[Mila_]

Please don't give me poop ratings on posts that are not troll attempts @justjoinedtopost.

Edit: and I will repeat this to you as well @Guy, I thought we had talked about this before and got to the agreement that you would stop giving me facepalms and poops on posts that weren't trolling attempts.

It gets old.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

No, the problem in my example is not of diversity, but of the fact that gay people cannot procreate. If 10% of society is gay, to give a random figure, then that is 10% less couples having kids. Considering a society needs a 2.3 fertility rate in order to break even and not age or shrink (2.3 kids per couple). For each homosexual couple out there having no kids, you need an hetero couple willing to birth 4.6 kids in order to break even. If we add to this the fact that there are other reasons not to procreate other than sexual orientation, for example, millenial women wanting to go childfree or have only 1 kid per couple, you start to see how the trend becomes a problem for society.

So the problem is not the "what if" 100% society goes gay. It's that we aren't reproducing at maximum efficiency, and reaping the economic rewards?

When you were making sure the numbers were right to justify your shrewd assessment of homosexuality, did you take into account that the gays might be offset by the likes of the Duggars, or the poor in trailer parks and housing projects? Or are you going to retreat back into your abstract vacuum now that I brought that up?

Please don't give me poop ratings on posts that are not troll attempts @justjoinedtopost.

Sorry. I only gave a turd because there isn't a @superturd. You earned it.

You have trotted out every bullet point from the AntiGay Agenda. It is disgusting. Revolting. But what is utterly nauseating is the lengths you go to to hide your sickness behind a facade of logic.

 

[weirdbr]

Please don't give me poop ratings on posts that are not troll attempts @justjoinedtopost.

Edit: and I will repeat this to you as well @Guy, I thought we had talked about this before and got to the agreement that you would stop giving me facepalms and poops on posts that weren't trolling attempts.

It gets old.

Here's the deal - if you want to go around publicising ideas that the majority of society disagrees with as being truths then you need to have a thick skin to deal with people calling you out on it. If you don't (which seems to be the case given your post I am quoting), I recommend stop engaging in discussions like this, specially if you keep insisting on committing the same logical fallacies I have called you out on before.

 

[Mila_]

Here's the deal - if you want to go around publicising ideas that the majority of society disagrees with as being truths then you need to have a thick skin to deal with people calling you out on it. If you don't (which seems to be the case given your post I am quoting), I recommend stop engaging in discussions like this, specially if you keep insisting on committing the same logical fallacies I have called you out on before.

So the options are either total agreement with the majority, shutting up, or taking aggression and abuse from you? Wow.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

So the options are either total agreement with the majority, shutting up, or taking aggression and abuse from you? Wow.

Don't take it so personally deary. Bigotry is a problem for society. Only makes sense we try to discourage it.

 

[Mila_]

So the problem is not the "what if" 100% society goes gay. It's that we aren't reproducing at maximum efficiency, and reaping the economic rewards?

When you were making sure the numbers were right to justify your shrewd assessment of homosexuality, did you take into account that the gays might be offset by the likes of the Duggars, or the poor in trailer parks and housing projects? Or are you going to retreat back into your abstract vacuum now that I brought that up?


Sorry. I only gave a turd because there isn't a @superturd. You earned it.

You have trotted out every bullet point from the AntiGay Agenda. It is disgusting. Revolting. But what is utterly nauseating is the lengths you go to to hide your sickness behind a facade of logic.

You can disagree with my posts without calling me a troll. Especially if I am doing my best to explain my point of view.

Also.. I am constantly surprised when you guys try to shut down dissent. It is a binary world you live in. We are expected to be total and absolute celebration of homosexuality because if I deviate one degree from that I am labeled anti-gay, homophobic, or "sickness". Guess what? There are degrees within acceptance.

 

[weirdbr]

So the options are either total agreement with the majority, shutting up, or taking aggression and abuse from you? Wow.

I will just say that I find it very interesting that you frame disagreement (whether it comes as a 'facepalm' or 'poop') as abuse - these are a few of the ways we have on this forum to say we disagree with you, but you seem to be assigning a lot more of intent into those ratings than what people might mean to them. To me they just rate from 'disagree' to 'strongly disagree' to 'really really strongly disagree'.

 

[Lintilla]

Here's the deal - if you want to go around publicising ideas that the majority of society disagrees with as being truths then you need to have a thick skin to deal with people calling you out on it. If you don't (which seems to be the case given your post I am quoting), I recommend stop engaging in discussions like this, specially if you keep insisting on committing the same logical fallacies I have called you out on before.

I've been lurking in this thread, because I haven't figured out how to articulate what I would say, and now the conversation is all over the place. But here's one thing I *can* articulate. While I agree with some of the things @Kitsune is saying, and agree with many others, I don't see any malicious intent whatsoever, not even close. How would anyone else feel if they made a good faith attempt to explain their views, fully knowing that most people reading it would disagree, and as response getting (the internet equivalent of) shit on instead of an equally good faith attempt at debate? I don't think that politely asking for people not to do so is thin skinned...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Also.. I am constantly surprised when you guys try to shut down dissent. It is a binary world you live in. We are expected to be total and absolute celebration of homosexuality because if I deviate one degree from that I am labeled anti-gay, homophobic, or "sickness". Guess what? There are degrees within acceptance.

It's not like anyone called you a disease carrying threat to society lol. Don't be such a crybaby.

 

[Mila_]

It's not like anyone called you a disease carrying threat to society lol. Don't be such a crybaby.

I called nobody a disease. Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Osmia]

Sorry. I only gave a turd because there isn't a @superturd. You earned it.

You have trotted out every bullet point from the AntiGay Agenda. It is disgusting. Revolting. But what is utterly nauseating is the lengths you go to to hide your sickness behind a facade of logic.

I think a "Superturd" is a great idea, along with a Picard-esque two-handed facepalm. I suspect Amber wouldn't be down with that, though. ;-)

 

[Mila_]

I will just say that I find it very interesting that you frame disagreement (whether it comes as a 'facepalm' or 'poop') as abuse - these are a few of the ways we have on this forum to say we disagree with you, but you seem to be assigning a lot more of intent into those ratings than what people might mean to them. To me they just rate from 'disagree' to 'strongly disagree' to 'really really strongly disagree'.

Actually, disagreement is shown by either a statement or a "disagree" rating. Calling me a troll when I am not and flinging poop at me is abuse.

 

[weirdbr]

Actually, disagreement is shown by either a statement or a "disagree" rating. Calling me a troll when I am not and flinging poop at me is abuse.

Not really - explicitly playing out/representing a position that is known to be extremely controversial is a very common troll tactic. You might know you are not a troll, but those reading your posts might not know otherwise and might be guessing this is the case.

 

[Mila_]

Not really - explicitly playing out/representing a position that is known to be extremely controversial is a very common troll tactic. You might know you are not a troll, but those reading your posts might not know otherwise and might be guessing this is the case.

Trolls do things to get a reaction out of people. I am not doing that. I am taking time and effort to explain why I believe the things I believe. If you think that anyone that disagrees with the majority is a troll then why have a forum board for discussing different things? What is the point of debate if everyone simply repeats the same idea over and over?

 

[weirdbr]

Trolls do things to get a reaction out of people. I am not doing that. I am taking time and effort to explain why I believe the things I believe.

I guess you don't know the trolls I have met who spend inordinate amounts of time defending positions that they know will be controversial just for the fun of playing devil's advocate. In fact, your replies are *really* short compared to what they do produce, which is why I can easily imagine you as a very bored person trolling this forum for fun.

What is the point of debate if everyone simply repeats the same idea over and over?

The point of debate is to learn/improve. However the pattern that is clear to me in your posts is that you are strongly entrenched in your ideas and are unwilling to re-evaluate your position based on the data/feedback that others provide, no matter the source of that data.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

One other thing you said, about incest being a "game the whole family can play." I mean, I guess it's something to consider, that multiple relationships within a family might occur if it wasn't illegal, and that certainly sounds messy and has the potential for a lot of heartache, but minors would still be minors. If an adult is into any 15 year old, that's an issue. Maybe having an older age of consent for familial sexual relationships could a way to address how complicated that could get. I dunno, it's quite a lot to chew on!

See to me it's far easier to justify a strict ban on incest than a ban on sex with minors based on some arbitrary age. Most of us have meet 15 year-olds (generally girls) who are extraordinarily mature and 24-year-olds (generally boys) who act like children. When you consider that as recently as 50 years the age of consent was 12-14 in most places in the world, and it remains at 14 or below in large parts of the world South America, China and others, I'm not real comfortable condemning anybody who wants to have sex with a 15 year old. I have zero sexual interest in young girls, and it makes sense to protect children, but it seems a little weird that what was perfectly ok a few generations ago, now is considered on par with a murderer today.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Yikes. So much has happened since I started writing this, I have pretty much deleted everything I was going to say cause wow.

We definitely have to remember that the tone of a post is not always interpreted the way it was intended.

It is true that there is a lot of trolling that consists of people who constantly disagree with unpopular opinions just to get a rise out of people. But we know that @Kitsune is not doing this because she has told us that is not her intention.

I am opinionated and I love talking about politics and issues that are important to me. It is challenging to discuss these things with someone who looks at them so differently from me, and with whom I disagree with so much. But if I decide to engage in a discussion like that, then I am prepared to treat everyone as fairly as I can, even if I start to have feelings about the different opinions being expressed. Even if I have a million problems with some opinions and feel angry about it, I try my best to not make it personal, or to take anything too personally.

I agree that being mean is really not necessary. People are going to disagree, some will really really really strongly disagree and if the discussion becomes stagnate with no one learning anything new and only arguing back and forth, then at some point maybe it would be better to agree to disagree than start flinging poop at the person with the unpopular opinion.

 

[Mila_]

Okay, maybe I should stop posting about these issues, @weirdbr I have considered doing just that lately actually.. so thank you for your feedback.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I called nobody a disease. Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

I didn't say you did. I said nobody called you a disease carrying threat to society, which is a pretty accurate summary of your views on homosexuality over the course of this thread.

Now it is a terrible tragedy that you had to endure that holocaust of a poop-rating I gave you, and I don't fault you for your tears. But let me take the time and effort to explain to you why I did it....

You have brought out nothing new, nothing original, nothing I haven't been exposed to for over 40 years. Same tired nonsense. I am surrounded by it, and I can't hop a jet and leave it behind, or else I would. I have seen the damage it has caused. It is divisive, it is used to oppress, and it is ugly. You have used your "thought experiments" to paint a picture of the way you see things. I hope you can understand that is all I was doing with my rating.

 

[Mila_]

I didn't say you did. I said nobody called you a disease carrying threat to society, which is a pretty accurate summary of your views on homosexuality over the course of this thread.

Now it is a terrible tragedy that you had to endure that holocaust of a poop-rating I gave you, and I don't fault you for your tears. But let me take the time and effort to explain to you why I did it....

You have brought out nothing new, nothing original, nothing I haven't been exposed to for over 40 years. Same tired nonsense. I am surrounded by it, and I can't hop a jet and leave it behind, or else I would. I have seen the damage it has caused. It is divisive, it is used to oppress, and it is ugly. You have used your "thought experiments" to paint a picture of the way you see things. I hope you can understand that is all I was doing with my rating.

Again, thank you for repeating this 4 times, we all understand you dislike my views, maybe you are right and I am bringing nothing original or different to these threads, so I will take that into account.

 

[Aella]

Okay, maybe I should stop posting about these issues, @weirdbr I have considered doing just that lately actually.. so thank you for your feedback.

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but if you view procreation as a moral incentive, or good, or whatever, would you then agree that:

Procreation is the goal.
Voluntary childfree couples
Gay people
Sterile people

Are all (varying degrees) of violation of this goal, and we should view them as defunct in some way, and attempt to fix them?

Also would you agree that your disagreement is with non-procreation, and if any of these three things on the list can somehow be achieved without damaging procreation (children are still produced at the same rate as they would have otherwise), then you would no longer have an issue with any of them?

 

[Osmia]

.....What is the point of debate if everyone simply repeats the same idea over and over?

Exactly, and repeating the same idea over and over is just what you're doing. Ideally, every participant will learn something new from a discussion, develop a new perspective, and those ideas will be reflected in their writings.

I learn a lot from the discussions I have on ACF, in three ways: (1) Listening to what others are saying, especially if it's based on personal experience or factual knowledge; (2) Doing research on the side to confirm what someone else is saying, or to make sure I have my facts straight; (3) The process of writing focuses my thinking, and leads me to better awareness of nuances or unstated assumptions.

For example, as a result of discussions about the police in the BLM thread, I decided I needed to learn more about the police and policing in the US, so I've rented a textbook for the Fall semester from Amazon.

It would help the discussion if you showed some flexibility and openness to new ideas (because what is the point of a discussion otherwise?), but you often seem impervious.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I guess you don't know the trolls I have met who spend inordinate amounts of time defending positions that they know will be controversial just for the fun of playing devil's advocate. In fact, your replies are *really* short compared to what they do produce, which is why I can easily imagine you as a very bored person trolling this forum for fun.


The point of debate is to learn/improve. However the pattern that is clear to me in your posts is that you are strongly entrenched in your ideas and are unwilling to re-evaluate your position based on the data/feedback that others provide, no matter the source of that data.

I find nothing Trolling about her behavior. She is taking an unpopular position on this forum and defending it a very logical and pretty unemotional manner. Homosexuality and gay marriage is supported by a bare majority of people in the US and slightly larger majority in Europe. Other than that it is pretty much condemned in the rest of world, and right now I'm sure a gay person is being executed in some Islamic country.

Now I believe that the west is right and the rest of the world is wrong regarding gay rights, but if I'm being honest there isn't a lot of empirical evidence to back up my or western belief. So I applaud her for having the courage to present an unpopular opinion.

 

[Mila_]

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but if you view procreation as a moral incentive, or good, or whatever, would you then agree that:

Procreation is the goal.
Voluntary childfree couples
Gay people
Sterile people

Are all (varying degrees) of violation of this goal, and we should view them as defunct in some way, and attempt to fix them?

Also would you agree that your disagreement is with non-procreation, and if any of these three things on the list can somehow be achieved without damaging procreation (children are still produced at the same rate as they would have otherwise), then you would no longer have an issue with any of them?

Well, my example was meant to illustrate a general principle: why certain attitudes might not hurt another individual but be detrimental to society at large. There are many cases in which social freedoms can hurt society and I wrote it in response to the idea that NAP is the only moral imperative.

The goal isn't procreation, but a strong and healthy society. Ideally there is a balance between personal freedoms and social cohesion because doing too much in expense of the other puts society or individuality at risk. Procreation is just one of the things society needs to grow strong and also one thing that not every individual will want to do. Which is why people who choose not to procreate put a strain on society, regardless of whether it is because of their sexual orientation or life goals.

If fertility rates were not affected it would still be a problem if the solution involves other people picking up the slack for those who decided to go child free. Because each person should be responsible for themselves and for doing their part to sustain society, and having children falls within that. It used to be considered a duty to have a family, but we don't seem to like the word duty anymore in this century.

Regardless of that my position has always been to avoid the use of force and let these things fall into the realm of social pressure. Society does a fantastic job at curbing attitudes whether they are actually harmful or not. Simply look at how we have curbed smoking through shunning the practice culturally. Is it illegal to smoke? No, but people don't want to be seen smoking because it is a social faux pas, at least in the US.

But when we insist on encouraging attitudes that are not good for society (or individuals) like homosexuality even if we have to go against our natural instincts in TV, movies, and our education system, we cannot be surprised when we see a peak in those attitudes and society suffers as a result. If we make TV shows and movies normalizing drug use, for example, and portraying it as something acceptable, healthy, and happy we shouldn't scratch our heads when drug use starts to rise.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I find nothing Trolling about her behavior.

I do see some trollishness in there, and I'll be honest, I've been fighting the urge to poop her since page 2. That said, I enjoy reading her posts as much as anybody's. Lot of info in there.

But going from a "what if 100% go gay" to "we need a birthrate of 2.3" was just too much.

 

[Dani Picas]

This thread would definately be a lot less interesting I think if @Kitsune and everyone else hadn't brought up certain points and it hasn't gone so far into each point. If we all said ew how gross - boring and totally uneducational.

And I do think that labeling someone as a troll is just a weak act. Just because you don't agree on something with someone doesn't make them a troll, but by labeling them as one you are showing your closeminddness at other people's opinions. Instead, you could either back your own opinions up with more info if needed, or just move on. The thing is we don't always have to agree, that isn't the point of discussion.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This thread would definately be a lot less interesting I think if @Kitsune and everyone else hadn't brought up certain points and it hasn't gone so far into each point. If we all said ew how gross - boring and totally uneducational.

And I do think that labeling someone as a troll is just a weak act. Just because you don't agree on something with someone doesn't make them a troll, but by labeling them as one you are showing your closeminddness at other people's opinions. Instead, you could either back your own opinions up with more info if needed, or just move on. The thing is we don't always have to agree, that isn't the point of discussion.

I agree her bringing up points is interesting.

Here is one I disagree with...

But when we insist on encouraging attitudes that are not good for society (or individuals) like homosexuality...

Homosexuality is not an attitude.

 

[Ms_Diane]

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, but if you view procreation as a moral incentive, or good, or whatever, would you then agree that:

Procreation is the goal.
Voluntary childfree couples
Gay people
Sterile people

Are all (varying degrees) of violation of this goal, and we should view them as defunct in some way, and attempt to fix them?

Also would you agree that your disagreement is with non-procreation, and if any of these three things on the list can somehow be achieved without damaging procreation (children are still produced at the same rate as they would have otherwise), then you would no longer have an issue with any of them?

A lot of gay people do procreate. Gay men often use surrogates to carry a child that has been fertilized with their own sperm and lesbians have several options for getting pregnant. These are the same things that hetero couples do if they are unable to get pregnant the old fashioned way.

A lot gay people also adopt kids. Does it matter if those parents are gay or straight? They are still raising children who are in need of a home.

 

[JoleneBrody]

 

[IsabellaSnow]

oh look, there's a train! Looks like it's going too fast... Oh shit! It just hit that other train and came off the tracks in a big fiery mess!
I feel like this thread is entertaining in the same way...

@Kitsune we have a growing population. Actually the world is too populated, so I wouldn't worry so much about a few people choosing not to have children. In fact seeing as we have diminishing resources and problems of global warming and global economic disaster coming from too many people over populating and therefore consuming, not having children is actually a great thing for society!
You have a very old fashioned view of things that just isn't valid anymore, especially as people live and work for longer and women work more which means we have plenty of people filling in jobs! We've got more people now than the baby boom period so I really don't get your point...
We've always had people in society who don't have children and they provide lots of value. It's a very normal, natural thing, historically your point would only work in an under populated society where you need all the children you can get, but I still wouldn't say those with no children are a drain on society.
More of a drain is those who have children but can't afford/care for them.

As for the Troll attempts ratings... I disagree with what you're saying but you are saying your beliefs. I like people to be able to talk about things that aren't so politically correct. It makes for interesting discussion.

What I will say though is you have held your guns so religiously and haven't really written anything new except occasionally letting it slip how deeply your homophobia runs. You continue to completely derail the thread into something that a lot of people are saying they don't find relevant, but causes such a reaction that people feel inclined to answer. So on that subject yes it is getting a little Troll like... I know it's not your intention but it has resulted in something similar so I can understand why some people rated that.
A discussion is usually when you take into account other peoples views, on either side. I've seen others take into account your views but I haven't see much evidence you've really listened to what others are trying to say.

I've had plenty of different opinions from people on this forum, I've had some wonderful heated debates with people here, sometimes resulting in being told I'm being a berk, often on subjects there aren't really rights or wrongs, just opinions. But I've also always looked up what the other person is saying and many of my views have been changed by wonderful people here. I've also apologised when I've said insensitive things...
We have a fair amount of bi/gay people on this forum and mostly everyone seems like a gay friendly bunch... It's like someone coming to the forum and saying camgirls are detrimental to society etc then repeatedly making the point of why (without any evidence besides personal bias) without swaying when given facts and evidence. It's never going to go down well...

Anyways... Back to incest...

I tried doing some research on this but there are so many articles on child abuse that it's so hard to find anything. But I'd be very curious to know if there are any psychological studies on adults later in life who took part in adult consensual incest.
My intuition/empathy says that there would be a high chance that something that seemed hot at the time night really gross you out and maybe cause trauma later in life.
I've done stuff like that (not incest or anything illegal) where you want to do something/sleep with someone and it really turns you on because it seems kinda taboo but afterwards you feel kinda messed up. Though that this couple is in an actual relationship it could be different. I don't know, which is why I'd love to find out years from now if they feel just as relaxed about it all as a standard relationship.

One thing I noticed from the article was it seemed to be mostly the mother talking about love etc and she clearly did initiate it. I'm not saying they're not in love or that he's just a horny teenager, but I'd like to hear more from him about their relationship.

Just another thought... What if they break up? Like say if it's totally legal and they were together, if they broke up would it mean he'd lose his newly found mother too? And even his siblings?

I understand why it's illegal. If it weren't what would stop parents waiting until their child were old enough? What would stop men "breeding" a new younger partner? Same with siblings. Even if no sexual contact were initiated grooming can start at a young age. When you get sibling abuse, what would create the abusive nature? And for all the people not into incest. Not going to lie, if my dad decided "hey my daughter has got pretty hot, let's try it on" one day I would be traumatised and the relationship would be ruined. I'm 25, totally able to consent, but if a male relative ever imagines fucking me I'd rather not know!

Comparison to the gay thing as people clearly like- girl I know wanting to hook up with me- might be awkward if I didn't swing that way but it wouldn't effect me psychologically. Might even be flattering.
Parent/uncle/sibling coming onto me- get me some counselling please.

It just seems like the negatives drastically outweigh the positives. Do I believe they should go to jail? Mmm no. I believe they should get some good therapy to see how they feel about it, give support and see how it effects them long term. In this particular situation I do think she's been a bit predatory, but not anything so disgusting I'm writhing just thinking about it. It also sounds like she has a whole range of issues that could be the cause of her attraction, but even so would help her life if they were addressed. Same goes for him.

Like I do feel for them, it must really suck... But I'd rather keep the law in place to protect others.
Plus just one generation of incest can absolutely cause problems. As jerry posted a whole load of info, I also did my own research and found that direct incest unions often result in very ill children who don't make it past a certain age.
I've been on medication before where I had to agree not to get pregnant as it has severe complications for the child. Though sure, this might happen naturally, I understand that if you can stop the high chance of a child being conceived into a life of pain, weakness and other issues it makes sense to try and avoid it. And if it happens naturally then that's just part of life, you make the most out of what life gives you.