Homophobic abuse of the heterosexual, Bo Derek and the sanctity of marriage

[mordorbund]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Please tell me you did that on purpose.

Nope.  

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Nope.  

Nope, you won't tell me that?  Or Nope, you didn't do that on purpose?

If the former, does that mean ... waitaminute.  if you won't tell me...

ArGGHH!!! Mordor!!!

Edited April 30 by Carborendum

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Nope, you won't tell me that?  Or Nope, you didn't do that on purpose?

If the former, does that mean ... waitaminute.  if you won't tell me...

ArGGHH!!! Mordor!!!

Now you understand why he's Mordor-bound.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

LGBTQ folks have been murdered, beaten, and in many other ways actually persecuted simply for loving the wrong person

Please note that this is quite obviously false. There are some few people throughout history who have been killed literally for loving the wrong person. I doubt that description almost ever applied to homosexual couples. "Loving" is not and never has been the issue, unless you think that "loving" your father or your son or your brother or your best friend means engaging in intimate sexual relations with him.

I see PP's point and think it has some merit, but the leftist shaming/blaming expression of that viewpoint discourages me from adding my voice.

[Phoenix_person]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see PP's point and think it has some merit, but the leftist shaming/blaming expression of that viewpoint discourages me from adding my voice.

So you'd rather argue semantics instead? I know you know what I meant.

Guess what? People of privilege have done a lot of horrible things to people less privileged than them throughout human history, including persecuting and committing violence against people who l̶o̶v̶e̶ have sexual relations with the wrong people. Do I feel personally guilty about that? No. Do I think you should? Of course not. But it's important for the privileged to recognize the harm that people like us have done to others, especially when that harm still manifests itself so vividly in many aspects of our culture. Recognizing white privilege isn't the same as white guilt. The latter is what helps white liberals sleep at night. The former is an actual means to creating a more equitable and less contentious society.

[Carborendum]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

Please note that this is quite obviously false. There are some few people throughout history who have been killed literally for loving the wrong person. I doubt that description almost ever applied to homosexual couples. "Loving" is not and never has been the issue, unless you think that "loving" your father or your son or your brother or your best friend means engaging in intimate sexual relations with him.

I see PP's point and think it has some merit, but the leftist shaming/blaming expression of that viewpoint discourages me from adding my voice.

I remember when the AIDS craze was around that it became appropriate to have condom ads on TV.  I'd never seen them before.  But thanks to the AIDS scare, "poof" there they were.

One commercial in particular comes to mind: A rather attractive woman recites the information from then Surgeon General, C. Everett Coop.  Then says, "I'm willing to do many things for love.  But I'm not willing to die for it."

If not, I wonder what she thinks love is. When people mix up the act with the emotion, the message gets screwed up.  No, I'm not condoning killing people for their sexual preference.

I would like to point out that one of the greatest atrocities in history was carried out by an individual (who could best be described as a "pantheist" who worshipped "nature") against a religious people known for their drive, ambition, industry, and relative political passivity.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

So you'd rather argue semantics instead? I know you know what I meant.

On the contrary, this is not primarily a semantic point. Yours is an openly false expression of the idea that's supposed to underlie what you're talking about.

The claim is that homosexuals have been and are persecuted because of whom they love. That's false. Period. It is an untrue statement no matter how you slice it. And it is intentionally so; the expression is designed to cast the issue in terms of a spiritual experience (love) rather than a physical act (sex). It's a bogus claim. Love, per se, has literally nothing to do with it. Homosexual activity between people who don't love each other would provoke the same response.

Now maybe your claim is that it doesn't matter, that people shouldn't keep track of who is sticking which body part into whom. Well, okay. Maybe that's a valid argument. Then make that argument. Don't obfuscate the issue by making false and irrelevant claims about persecution due to whom one loves.

[Carborendum]

19 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

Recognizing white privilege isn't the same as white guilt. The latter is what helps white liberals sleep at night. The former is an actual means to creating a more equitable and less contentious society.

Now you're arguing semantics.

I'll point out that I have never heard of a woke individual saying that any other race has "privilege."  Soon, I'm certain, people will be touting "Asian privilege."  Perhaps they already have and I just haven't heard it.

Whether you believe it or not by whatever definition you choose, the problem I have with it is the unspoken assumption that they didn't deserve that.  They never worked for it.

1. How do you know?  This is especially relevant when there are first generation individual who definitely did work hard for it and achieved it themselves through honest means.

2. So, if parents or grandparents... set things up to grow wealth generationally, then why aren't other people doing the same thing?  What's stopping you?

I remember in the 70s, there was open racism.  It was not always the lynching, denying job type of racism.  It was different.  Black people still believed in the American Dream.  And by the 80s, it was a lot better.  You didn't hear about lynchings anymore.  And it was rare that anyone even used a racial epithet. 

During that era, the parents did everything they could to sacrifice for their children's future.  And most of those children fortunate enough to have such dedicated parents became upper middle class or better in one generation -- including many black families.  Others, if that tradition was carried on, would take two or three generations.  But they did it -- just like nearly all white families with "privilege."  They made it because ancestors sacrificed their lives for their children's future.

Today, nearly every case you can talk about where "the MAN was keeping you down" was a result of the lack of parents raising their children and instilling in them a sense of hope through parental sacrifice.

Edited April 30 by Carborendum

[zil2]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Now you're arguing semantics.

I'll point out that I have never heard of woke individual saying that any other race has "privilege."  Soo, I'm certain, people will be touting "Asian privilege."  Perhaps they already have and I just haven't heard it.

Whether you believe it or not by whatever definition you choose, the problem I have with it is the unspoken assumption that they didn't deserve that.  They never worked for it.

1. How do you know?  This is especially relevant when there are first generation individual who definitely did work hard for it and achieved it themselves through honest means.

2. So, if parents or grandparents... set things up to grow wealth generationally, then why aren't other people doing the same thing?  What's stopping you?

I remember in the 70s, there was open racism.  It was not always the lynching, denying job type of racism.  It was different.  Black people still believed in the American Dream.  And by the 80s, it was a lot better.  You didn't hear about lynchings anymore.  And it was rare that anyone even used a racial epithet. 

During that era, the parents did everything they could to sacrifice for their children's future.  And most of those children fortunate enough to have such dedicated parents became upper middle class or better in one generation.  Others, if that tradition was carried on, would take two or three generations.  But they did it -- just like nearly all white families with "privilege."  They made it because ancestors sacrificed their lives for their children's future.

Today, nearly every case you can talk about where "the MAN was keeping you down" was a result of the lack of parents raising their children and in stilling in them a sense of hope through parental sacrifice.

Every day I grow more and more convinced that every problem in society can be traced back to the failure of the nuclear family (success of the extended family is even better, but failure of the nuclear family is equivalent to the failure of a society).

Edited April 30 by zil2

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

Every day I grow more and more convinced that every problem in society can be traced by to the failure of the nuclear family (success of the extended family is even better, but failure of the nuclear family is equivalent to the failure of a society).

That is much more true than any woke leftist's conclusion on the matter.  People simply don't recognize the importance of the family unit.  But they will certainly shed tears when someone shares a sob story about their broken home.  So, what is any leftist doing to preserve the family as the basic and most important unit of society?  <crickets>.

Statistics are so clear it is frightening.  If you honor the traditional family, you have a greater than 90% chance of being in the middle class or higher when you grow up.  Breaking the nuclear family...  that's a different story.

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Heterosexuality was the ONLY acceptable sexual norm in Western society for centuries. LGBTQ people weren't just "left out", they were actively (and often violently) persecuted en masse. Heck, openly queer folks in the US couldn't serve their country until 2011. That didn't stop some of them from serving with honor and dignity, and there's a strong possibility that some LGBTQ people have died in the service of a country that never accepted them in their lifetime.

Outside of the military, LGBTQ folks have been murdered, beaten, and in many other ways actually persecuted simply for loving the wrong person or wearing the wrong clothes. I don't know about you, but as a cis-het white man, I don't feel like there has ever been that kind of hatred and animosity directed towards me. When cis-het people DO experience some blowback for their sexual/gender orientation, it's usually because they were being intolerant jerks, not exclusively because they aren't queer. So I hope you'll forgive me for not being up in arms about the lack of Straight Pride Month™️ or whatever trivial recognition you think cis-het people are entitled to.

White patriarchy is often defined by Paul's biblical teachings on patriarchy, specifically the contortion of it by some Christians to justify misogynistic and flat-out abusive behavior. However, there has never been an assumption that toxicity is limited to white people. The black community, for instance, rightfully takes a lot of heat for misogynist attitudes among black men. Systemic racism plays a role in the epidemic of fatherless black children, but so does generally toxic male behavior. Black men are far more likely to face repercussions for abusive behavior, both from their partners and from society, than white men. Divorce rates in the black community (not all caused by abuse, of course) are 10% higher than the national average despite 60% of the US population being white. That doesn't happen in a non-toxic environment. Again, some of it can be blamed on white society's ostricization of the Black community until recent history (yes, recent, many of the people who fought in the Civil Rights movement, both sides of it, are still alive today), but a lot of it comes down to poor personal behavior and decisions. Those problems aren't limited to black men, but black men tend to pay for it more than their white (esp white Christian) counterparts.

 

I cannot account for anything other than my own personal experiences.  My first encounter with homosexuality was as a 12-year-old boy scout by an individual that claimed to be a district boy scout official it was a lie.  It was not a pleasant experience at a young and tender age to encounter a sexual predator.  I still believe that I was watched over and protected by garden angles at the time.  My next encounters encored while in the military during the Vietnam era.  I was in the army (mostly the reserves) from 1964 to 1972.  During the early part of my active duty (I was small, 115 lbs. 17 years old) I encountered predatory homosexuals targeting me and others in military service.  I believe this is because being in the military (especially during conflict) a young man is often very isolated lonely and extremely venerable to pretending friendly predators.  I was targeted often (at least weekly) and often such encounters resulted in violence - some were in the military.   To this day I believe that non predatory homosexuals could easily serve in the military or boy scouts without “outing” themselves.  That the only reason to be deliberately openly pronounced homosexual in the military or even the Boy Scouts, without any possible negative repercussions is for predatory purposes.

Because of my military experiences with homosexuals, I became extremely prejudiced and would have nothing to do with homosexuality and I would threaten any guy that would even joke with me that they were interested.   To this day it is still extremally difficult for me to hug a guy.   However, my journey dealing with homosexuality did not end with the military.  I believe that G-d had a hand in bringing me to understand that not all homosexuals are predators.  There is a vast spectrum.  I was brought to close and trusted friendships with a number of homosexuals that I could respect, trust and love as friends.

Even though I have discovered trusted friendships within the LGBTQ+ community I have also discovered that the LGBTQ+ community seems very protective of all LGBTQ+ types – even of predators.  So much so that even those of a live and let live mentality that would stand firmly against predators are discouraged and at times treated badly by the greater LGBTQ+ community.  Because there is such a tendency within the LGBTQ+ community to protect their own and go to extremes to qual any criticism – I can see why many outside of the LGBTQ+ community are revengeful of what was done to them or others they care about.  One of my great concerns is that promiscuous predatory sexual behaviors are so protected and openly exonerated and praised that the pendulum will swing back violently.  The line isolating predatory aggression (especially towards children) needs to be clearly and immovably drawn and offenders severely dealt with – especially within the entire LGBTQ+ community in dealing with their own.  If not dealt with honestly and openly – those with experiences like my own will have difficulty being kind and welcomingly towards those that are unwilling to realize that much of sexuality is learned (acquired) behavior.

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, this is not primarily a semantic point. Yours is an openly false expression of the idea that's supposed to underlie what you're talking about.

The claim is that homosexuals have been and are persecuted because of whom they love. That's false. Period. It is an untrue statement no matter how you slice it. And it is intentionally so; the expression is designed to cast the issue in terms of a spiritual experience (love) rather than a physical act (sex). It's a bogus claim. Love, per se, has literally nothing to do with it. Homosexual activity between people who don't love each other would provoke the same response.

Now maybe your claim is that it doesn't matter, that people shouldn't keep track of who is sticking which body part into whom. Well, okay. Maybe that's a valid argument. Then make that argument. Don't obfuscate the issue by making false and irrelevant claims about persecution due to whom one loves.

Fair enough. I still think you fully knew what I meant, but I'll try to use more accurate terminology.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'll point out that I have never heard of a woke individual saying that any other race has "privilege."  Soon, I'm certain, people will be touting "Asian privilege."  Perhaps they already have and I just haven't heard it.

Whether you believe it or not by whatever definition you choose, the problem I have with it is the unspoken assumption that they didn't deserve that.  They never worked for it.

Privilege is best looked at as a spectrum. As a cis-het Asian-American man, you have more privilege than many other identities based on your race, gender, and sexual orientation. It doesn't mean that you don't work any more or less hard for what you have. It means that the barriers that exist for many people based on the identity characteristics I named (and there are plenty of other factors) don't exist for you. And that doesn't mean that you don't have barriers of your own that you've had to overcome. We all do. Most people have some kind of barrier(s) to success that can be considered universal and unspecific to identity. Financial hardships, poor interpersonal skills, addiction, and abusive upbringing are some of the most common barriers that people can face, regardless of their sexuality or ethnic background. A lot of people have to overcome those barriers AND barriers that they were born with and shouldn't be barriers at all. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1. How do you know?  This is especially relevant when there are first generation individual who definitely did work hard for it and achieved it themselves through honest means.

You and I will no doubt disagree about the amount of success a person can achieve through honest means, but at it's core, there is nothing wrong with being self-made. 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

2. So, if parents or grandparents... set things up to grow wealth generationally, then why aren't other people doing the same thing?  What's stopping you?

There's not enough wealth and prosperity to provide an acre of land and a homestead for every one of America's 330 million+ citizens. We don't have the economic power or resources to sustain that. When suburbia was created, black families (and other ethnic minorities, no doubt) were largely excluded, and by design. Modern growth is being invested in urban density, or at least it should be.

The community organizing work I do has me neck deep in city planning, zoning, and NIMBYs, and I live in a "city" the size of College Station in a state that has better public investment than most. One thing I've learned is that, despite all the white liberal tears about equality and taking care of underprivileged citizens, the biggest barrier to success is people who already have it and don't want the neighborhood to get too c̶o̶l̶o̶r̶f̶u̶l̶ crowded. I have one of largest, most prestigious hospitals on the planet in my backyard, and they employ ~25% of the city's population. They recently tore down an old K-Mart to build a parking complex for hospital employees to park at and then be shuttled to their respective buildings. It seems to me that a better and more equitable solution would be to invest in apartment buildings downtown so that employees can walk or bike rather than shuttle in from a parking lot that exists only for them to be picked up from (there's no downtown parking for hospital employees, they can get in big trouble for parking downtown). But we can't do that because it'll "ruin the character of our historic downtown neighborhoods", or "what about parking?". 

Now, I realize that everything I typed out above about our local housing efforts is pretty "small potatoes" stuff. So now imagine the challenges of supporting a city 10x our size (like my former Texas home). A city can only geographically expand so far into suburbia before it starts creating strains on local infrastructure *cough*Houston*cough*. So bigger cities have to become denser in order to better serve their citizens. The world is a very different place than it was in the New Deal era. Cookie-cutter homes and white picket fences aren't the American Dream for a lot of younger Americans, partly because they know it's nearly impossible in 2024. My sister has three kids and her husband has a fairly well-paid position at BYU. Of the five of us, she's the one who has come the closest to achieving the American Dream, as we were taught to believe in it. They just bought a six-bedroom house. Nope. Sorry. Scratch that. They bought half of a six-bedroom house. My brother-in-law's sister bought the other half, because in today's housing market (even in economically-healthy Utah), that was a more affordable option than any 3-4 BR home they looked at. Does that sound like a sustainable way for families to build wealth? 

In 1996, my parents bought a $120,000 townhome in the Baltimore suburbs on the salary of an Air Force E-6 (about $50,000 before taxes and including housing allowance). I just looked on Zillow and there are two townhomes for sale in that same court that are listed at $330k+. I make $80k/yr with a job and VA disability and I couldn't afford to live in my old house. Heck, my VA check alone gives me $48k/yr and that's barely enough for a 2 BR apartment in a much cheaper state than Maryland. If you break down my VA check, it comes out to about $22/hr. My day job pays $20/hr. My income is a privilege that most people don't have. Most people weren't destroyed by the US military AND have a job that pays almost double the state minimum wage and almost triple the federal minimum wage. Most people don't even have one of those things. And our economy isn't designed for most people to. That's why I do organizing work, to help create an environment where everyone can thrive instead of just trying to survive. Whether that means a white picket fence or a reasonably-priced apartment with a breathtaking view of historic downtown and a short walking commute to work (😉), there's room for everyone to thrive. But first we need to recognize and address the barriers that currently prevent it.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I remember in the 70s, there was open racism.  It was not always the lynching, denying job type of racism.  It was different.  Black people still believed in the American Dream.  And by the 80s, it was a lot better.  You didn't hear about lynchings anymore.  And it was rare that anyone even used a racial epithet.

During that era, the parents did everything they could to sacrifice for their children's future. And most of those children fortunate enough to have such dedicated parents became upper middle class or better in one generation -- including many black families. Others, if that tradition was carried on, would take two or three generations. But they did it -- just like nearly all white families with "privilege." They made it because ancestors sacrificed their lives for their children's future.

It's great that lynchings and blatant discrimination are virtually extinct, but that doesn't mean that the effects of 20th Century racism haven't left modern black people at a disadvantage. Yes, there are pathways out of bad situations. There's an organization in my area that specifically caters to helping female immigrants (legal, we have a considerable population of Somalian immigrants, many of them single mothers) and victims of spousal abuse to do things like work on their education, job-finding skills, and find meaningful connections within the community. It's a non-profit and it does a decent job of helping our small community, but there's no reason why we can't use public funds to do things like that on a larger scale. Because sometimes people just need a little boost to get on the right track. Given the choice, I'd rather see my tax dollars go towards helping one of my neighbors find resources to thrive than funding foreign wars and subsidizing incompetent corporations.

Edited April 30 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Outside of the military, LGBTQ folks have been murdered, beaten, and in many other ways actually persecuted simply for loving the wrong person or wearing the wrong clothes. I don't know about you, but as a cis-het white man, I don't feel like there has ever been that kind of hatred and animosity directed towards me.

Several decades ago, I was pushed up against a set of lockers by someone who had a serious weight and muscle advantage.  He held me up against the lockers with one arm against my chest.  He held a knife pointed at my throat in his other hand.  He said "I cut mormons.  Are you a mormon?"   Yeah, I was forced to recant my faith at knifepoint.  Doing so filled me with embarrassment and shame at my weakness which followed me for years. 

Setting aside the persecutions the mormons experienced in our early history, yes indeed, I've experienced it personally.  This happened in Salt Lake City in the '80's, where I was in the empowered majority.  The dictionary definition of "person of privilege".

I'm always sympathetic to the underdogs, and genuine in my desire to live in a nation of just laws that protect everyone.   I am not impressed with various victim narratives based on identity politics where people use past injustices to justify current agendas.

 

Edited April 30 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't know about you, but as a cis-het white man, I don't feel like there has ever been that kind of hatred and animosity directed towards me. When cis-het people DO experience some blowback for their sexual/gender orientation, it's usually because they were being intolerant jerks, not exclusively because they aren't queer. So I hope you'll forgive me for not being up in arms about the lack of Straight Pride Month™️ or whatever trivial recognition you think cis-het people are entitled to

 

I have.  It was NOT because I was an intolerant jerk in this instance.

I was actually defending some students who were part of the LGBTQ identification spectrums (a few Transgendered at the time, and one or two of their friends who were Gay).  They were being attacked in a way that another Transgendered individual and their group of friends (a large number of them, a mixture of Transgendered, Gay and Lesbian individuals along with quite a number who claimed to be Bi) were trying to have their student visas removed.

The REASON had NOTHING to do with orientation in that manner, but dealt directly with Racism.  It's where I discovered that there a MASSIVE problem with racism in the LGBTQ community.  Shockingly enough, this was racism towards some Asian students (we won't get into the details, but what they thought was a valid excuse was absolutely ridiculous.  It wasn't worded this way, but basically boiled down to the idea that they felt uncomfortable attending classes with individuals from certain Asian nations due to events in the world, or so they claimed).

It was there that I learned calling someone CIS can actually be considered an insult by some in that community, as well as the idea that since I was "CIS" I could not possibly have any understanding of the situation (but as I said, it was NOT about LGBTQ, but racism, and that's nasty no matter who is doing it in that instance).  AS I do research in some portions of Asia at times, I think I had a better idea of the cultural and societal impacts relevant to the case than some white LGBTQ American kids who spent their entire lives in the United States. 

It was nasty, it was disgusting, and we had to get the administration aboard to back me up.  Ultimately no one got banned, but we did have to move some people around regarding classes as making adjustments to accomodate others (which one could also see as me losing as much as my winning the battle.  The minority students remained, but I paid a personal cost in having to readjust the department to accomodate the racist attitudes towards them). 

It was something that I find unfortunate, that there is some segment (and I have no idea how widespread it is or isn't, but it seemed that a majority of the white LGBTQ were actively discriminating against those who were from a minority race at the time, though it may also have to do with them being Transgendered...there were at least two Transgendered students among the racists group as well).  The LGBTQ have focused the issue so much on themselves being a minority that it seems that sometimes the discrimination they might practice among each other is being ignored by society at large as well.

This is not to detract from the thread, but to point out that we are ALL human and have fallibilities.  Most of these students were delightful and intelligent individuals on their own, but it was one of the nastier things I've had to deal with from over the years.  The big thing to remember is that we should love ALL our neighbors if we can, and respect them as well.  Whether it goes for whatever classification we are giving others (orientation, race, gender, religion, disability, etc), we should show everyone that they are individuals worthy of our respect.

Plus, my job also prefers I give everyone respect and equal treatment in regards to students, staff, and faculty. 

[Phoenix_person]

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have.  It was NOT because I was an intolerant jerk in this instance.

I was actually defending some students who were part of the LGBTQ identification spectrums (a few Transgendered at the time, and one or two of their friends who were Gay).  They were being attacked in a way that another Transgendered individual and their group of friends (a large number of them, a mixture of Transgendered, Gay and Lesbian individuals along with quite a number who claimed to be Bi) were trying to have their student visas removed.

The REASON had NOTHING to do with orientation in that manner, but dealt directly with Racism.  It's where I discovered that there a MASSIVE problem with racism in the LGBTQ community.  Shockingly enough, this was racism towards some Asian students (we won't get into the details, but what they thought was a valid excuse was absolutely ridiculous.  It wasn't worded this way, but basically boiled down to the idea that they felt uncomfortable attending classes with individuals from certain Asian nations due to events in the world, or so they claimed).

It was there that I learned calling someone CIS can actually be considered an insult by some in that community, as well as the idea that since I was "CIS" I could not possibly have any understanding of the situation (but as I said, it was NOT about LGBTQ, but racism, and that's nasty no matter who is doing it in that instance).  AS I do research in some portions of Asia at times, I think I had a better idea of the cultural and societal impacts relevant to the case than some white LGBTQ American kids who spent their entire lives in the United States. 

It was nasty, it was disgusting, and we had to get the administration aboard to back me up.  Ultimately no one got banned, but we did have to move some people around regarding classes as making adjustments to accomodate others (which one could also see as me losing as much as my winning the battle.  The minority students remained, but I paid a personal cost in having to readjust the department to accomodate the racist attitudes towards them). 

It was something that I find unfortunate, that there is some segment (and I have no idea how widespread it is or isn't, but it seemed that a majority of the white LGBTQ were actively discriminating against those who were from a minority race at the time, though it may also have to do with them being Transgendered...there were at least two Transgendered students among the racists group as well).  The LGBTQ have focused the issue so much on themselves being a minority that it seems that sometimes the discrimination they might practice among each other is being ignored by society at large as well.

I'm sorry that you, @Traveler and @NeuroTypical had those horrible experiences. Consider me humbled and enlightened.

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is not to detract from the thread, but to point out that we are ALL human and have fallibilities. Most of these students were delightful and intelligent individuals on their own, but it was one of the nastier things I've had to deal with from over the years. The big thing to remember is that we should love ALL our neighbors if we can, and respect them as well. Whether it goes for whatever classification we are giving others (orientation, race, gender, religion, disability, etc), we should show everyone that they are individuals worthy of our respect.

I couldn't agree more. And this really highlights the fact that we still have work to do, and not just among "traditional" privileged populations. As I said, it's a spectrum. Those kids might be marginalized in some circles because of their sexuality or gender identity, but that didn't stop them from finding an opportunity to express racist views towards someone they viewed as inferior. No one is immune from being a jerk. Bad attitudes aren't discriminatory about who they infect. The important thing is to look past our own prejudice and just see a jerk rather than a trans jerk, a white cis jerk, a Hispanic jerk, etc. Whenever there's a mass shooting, the media works itself into a frenzy trying to spin the shooter's identity. If the shooter is a straight white male conservative, the liberal media goes nuts. If the shooter falls under any other identity, conservative media goes nuts. Heck, a lot of conservatives are still talking about the shootings months ago committed by trans people. They almost seem to take glee in the fact that trans people did something so heinous, because they see it as a boost to their pro-gun and anti-trans narratives. Meanwhile, those of us who still have brains don't give a flying fornication about the shooter's race, motivation, or genitalia. We just want the mass shootings to stop. 

Edited April 30 by Phoenix_person

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I'm sorry that you, @Traveler and @NeuroTypical had those horrible experiences. Consider me humbled and enlightened.

........

I am impressed to clarify a couple of things.  I am not a person driven much by passion – rather I delight more in logic.  I do not find anything LGBTQ+ specific to be logical but rather a frail framework of ideology bult on a shifty unstable and unsustainable foundation contrary to necessary evolution through reproduction of our species.  In addition – I believe that the first prime directive of G-d and his heaven is the Agency of man.  That it is up to the individual to pursue whatever end they will.  As a scientist I do not believe any species is sustainable without a strong reproductive drive – thus I see no logic in incentivizing any other sexual activity for an intelligent species outside of loving and caring heterosexual sexual activity supported through a marriage commitment for our human species.  I can allow any individual to pursue what pleasure they will as long as they do not interfere with the agency of others (especially children under the age of 25 whose brain has not sufficiently developed executive functions) and as long as they do not intend to incentivize unstainable behaviors or claim such behaviors are beneficial beyond their own personal pleasures.  I believe that the prime engine for sexual and gender confusion is early exposure to pornography.   As pornography becomes more available to youth the more youth will suffer confusion and misdirection.  I am super concerned that the LGBTQ+ society in general seems desirous to indoctrinate children.

Thank you for listening!

 

The Traveler

[Phoenix_person]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am impressed to clarify a couple of things.  I am not a person driven much by passion – rather I delight more in logic.  I do not find anything LGBTQ+ specific to be logical but rather a frail framework of ideology bult on a shifty unstable and unsustainable foundation contrary to necessary evolution through reproduction of our species.  In addition – I believe that the first prime directive of G-d and his heaven is the Agency of man.  That it is up to the individual to pursue whatever end they will.  As a scientist I do not believe any species is sustainable without a strong reproductive drive – thus I see no logic in incentivizing any other sexual activity for an intelligent species outside of loving and caring heterosexual sexual activity supported through a marriage commitment for our human species.  

From a secular perspective, our planet is spiraling towards unsustainable population growth and slowing down human reproduction might not be a bad thing. In fact, it might be the logical thing. I'm not talking about ceasing procreation entirely. Short of a "Children of Men" scenario (great movie, can't recommend enough) or nuclear holocaust, I don't see population growth ever stopping. We don't all need to be baby factories. I realize your religion tells you the exact opposite. I'm an atheist because I often find religious ideas, like sustained population growth, to be illogical.

[JohnsonJones]

30 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said:

From a secular perspective, our planet is spiraling towards unsustainable population growth and slowing down human reproduction might not be a bad thing. In fact, it might be the logical thing. I'm not talking about ceasing procreation entirely. Short of a "Children of Men" scenario (great movie, can't recommend enough) or nuclear holocaust, I don't see population growth ever stopping. We don't all need to be baby factories. I realize your religion tells you the exact opposite. I'm an atheist because I often find religious ideas, like sustained population growth, to be illogical.

I have heard that, or at least a similar theory.  The idea was that as we have a greater and larger population, as things appear to be more limited and have a harder time to support a population, the natural evolution would be to have individuals that remove themselves from the gene pool, thus eliminating that number of reproductive individuals and thus decreasing the number of children created.

I haven't seen any evidence that shows it, but I have heard that theory. 

There is also a theory I've seen that charts the decrease in how rapidly a population increases as that population grows.  I think it was a TED talk.  In it, the individual showed that in more educated and wealthier nations the population growth slows among the citizens.  In theory, according to what he said, I think it was thought that the Human Population would peak around 10 Billion and that is around where it would stay, at least under present conditions forcasted.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

the Human Population would peak around 10 Billion

This is a miracle of modern technology. As Albert Allen Barrett's landmark 1978 paper said, "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food." (Note that Barrett, a professor of physics, was a committed Malthusianist. I'm not saying I agree with all of his opinions or conclusions. But his remark about modern agriculture being the conversion of petroleum into food is right on the mark.) Without modern farming methods, we would already be well beyond the so-called carrying capacity of the earth for human beings, which various estimates for traditional farming methods seem to put at 1-2 billion. Those of us on this list, indeed the whole world's population, can thank modern intensive farming for our very lives.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Fair enough. I still think you fully knew what I meant, but I'll try to use more accurate terminology.

I also believe I fully knew what you meant. You meant to cast so-called homophobia as an intolerance displayed by some and directed toward those who love people that they should not (in the judgment of the intolerant) love. I think this is exactly your meaning, without reading anything into your words or making anything up. And my point was that this meaning is false.

Now, as I wrote before, I think you had another point, one buried inside the rhetoric. That point was something like: Some people choose a different social and moral path, and their choice should be respected and they not be excluded from normal societal functions because of this different choice of path. That argument is possibly one that I could get behind, or at least not necessarily disagree with. I mean, if their path includes torturing animals or beating their children without mercy or gallavanting naked through the elementary schools, then I'm probably not going to agree about the necessity of respecting their choices. But in other cases, possibly including some aspects of homosexual conduct, I might agree. Had you said this, I may well have agreed. But you did not say this. You said what I explained in the first paragraph above.

I know you think I target you. I do not, at least not intentionally. In my belief system, you are a son of God, and therefore merit the same human consideration that I or any other child of God deserves. But I don't believe that such innate consideration and respect extends to refusing to call out a false argument or a loaded comment when such is presented. Saying that homosexuals were and/or are persecuted "because of whom they love" is a false statement, and it desperately needs to be called out for the falsehood that it is.

[Vort]

7 hours ago, Vort said:

This is a miracle of modern technology. As Albert Allen Barrett's landmark 1978 paper said, "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food." (Note that Barrett, a professor of physics, was a committed Malthusianist. I'm not saying I agree with all of his opinions or conclusions. But his remark about modern agriculture being the conversion of petroleum into food is right on the mark.) Without modern farming methods, we would already be well beyond the so-called carrying capacity of the earth for human beings, which various estimates for traditional farming methods seem to put at 1-2 billion. Those of us on this list, indeed the whole world's population, can thank modern intensive farming for our very lives.

Let me add that this is the reason we so vitally need alternative energy sources.

• Solar would be ideal, and the possibility of gigantic solar mirrors reflecting down concentrated sunlight for us to turn into usable electricity has excited imaginations for generations. But of course, such mirrors could easily be used to set forests or entire cities on fire.
• Other supposedly green solutions, mainly wind turbines, but also niche applications like tidal power generation and true geothermal power production, get batted around and pacify many who think that e.g. wind power sounds like a great solution to all our problems without realizing that engineering, structural, and logical problems make these things vastly more expensive and impossible or at least highly unlikely to generate a significant fraction of our power demands.
• Nuclear fission was hailed as a magic wand that would, with a wave, solve all our problems. A generation later, it was reviled as poisonous destruction that would inevitably doom us all. It is only now making something of a comeback, and we are saddled with terribly inefficient light-water solid-fuel reactors that, despite great safety reforms and methods, are still inherently dangerous because they are inherently unstable.
• Molten salt reactors, nuclear fission reactors that are much more efficient and orders of magnitude safer than the light-water reactors mentioned above, remain in the "good idea" phase because governments can't seem to find the political will to commit five years and ten billion dollars to developing usable prototypes—and it would probably take half that amount of both money and time, or less, especially if the safety and regulatory requirements that don't make sense to apply to an MSR were done away with.
• And of course, the granddaddy of energy Shangri-La, the fusion reactor, has recently been making a strong comeback, with the same assurances I remember from my early childhood, promises that usable fusion reactors are only 25 years away. Meanwhile, breakthrough after supposed breakthrough are breathlessly reported by a duped and duplicitous media that clearly does not understand what they are talking about, and the people involved keep sucking at that government teat.

Efficient and massively available power storage would greatly help our efforts here. Amazing strides in energy storage technology have been made just since I was in grad school 30+ years ago, studying many of the issues of battery storage from the perspective of a bioengineer thinking about artificial organ applications. But we aren't there yet. Lithium batteries are great and all, but to put it simply, a battery has to last for a hundred years to become really cost-effective as a useful storage device. There exists such technology even today, but it's still too large, too heavy, too expensive, and too limited. Sulfur batteries are, in 2024, on the horizon, and maybe in a year or two we'll see non-degrading mass battery energy storage at an acceptable efficiency which revolutionizes our power grid. That would be super cool. Flow batteries are another intruiging possibility; a completely non-degrading vanadium-based flow battery can be made today that will in principle last forever. But vanadium is pretty expensive to mine out of the soil. Maybe more problematically, you have to use a strong sulfuric acid solution to get enough vanadium to dissolve in the electrolyte to make the energy density sufficient to be really useful, and that makes a vanadium battery pretty dangerous. In addition, the concentrated sulfuric acid electrolyte tends to want to eat up everything it touches, especially the ion membrane, which tends to be pretty expensive.

I think some combination of nuclear power (hopefully the MSR type) and really great battery storage technology (my money is on flow batteries or maybe the sulfur technologies) offer us the best path forward. I don't think electrical farming will happen in my lifetime, but if you have good power sources, you can make acceptable fuel literally out of thin air. I'd like to see it happen.

If you've successfully read through my little essay, congratulations! You're as big a geek as I am. (You can take this as a compliment or as an insult, but it's meant as a simple statement of fact. You geek.)

[Phoenix_person]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Let me add that this is the reason we so vitally need alternative energy sources.

• Solar would be ideal, and the possibility of gigantic solar mirrors reflecting down concentrated sunlight for us to turn into usable electricity has excited imaginations for generations. But of course, such mirrors could easily be used to set forests or entire cities on fire.
• Other supposedly green solutions, mainly wind turbines, but also niche applications like tidal power generation and true geothermal power production, get batted around and pacify many who think that e.g. wind power sounds like a great solution to all our problems without realizing that engineering, structural, and logical problems make these things vastly more expensive and impossible or at least highly unlikely to generate a significant fraction of our power demands.
• Nuclear fission was hailed as a magic wand that would, with a wave, solve all our problems. A generation later, it was reviled as poisonous destruction that would inevitably doom us all. It is only now making something of a comeback, and we are saddled with terribly inefficient light-water solid-fuel reactors that, despite great safety reforms and methods, are still inherently dangerous because they are inherently unstable.
• Molten salt reactors, nuclear fission reactors that are much more efficient and orders of magnitude safer than the light-water reactors mentioned above, remain in the "good idea" phase because governments can't seem to find the political will to commit five years and ten billion dollars to developing usable prototypes—and it would probably take half that amount of both money and time, or less, especially if the safety and regulatory requirements that don't make sense to apply to an MSR were done away with.
• And of course, the granddaddy of energy Shangri-La, the fusion reactor, has recently been making a strong comeback, with the same assurances I remember from my early childhood, promises that usable fusion reactors are only 25 years away. Meanwhile, breakthrough after supposed breakthrough are breathlessly reported by a duped and duplicitous media that clearly does not understand what they are talking about, and the people involved keep sucking at that government teat.

Efficient and massively available power storage would greatly help our efforts here. Amazing strides in energy storage technology have been made just since I was in grad school 30+ years ago, studying many of the issues of battery storage from the perspective of a bioengineer thinking about artificial organ applications. But we aren't there yet. Lithium batteries are great and all, but to put it simply, a battery has to last for a hundred years to become really cost-effective as a useful storage device. There exists such technology even today, but it's still too large, too heavy, too expensive, and too limited. Sulfur batteries are, in 2024, on the horizon, and maybe in a year or two we'll see non-degrading mass battery energy storage at an acceptable efficiency which revolutionizes our power grid. That would be super cool. Flow batteries are another intruiging possibility; a completely non-degrading vanadium-based flow battery can be made today that will in principle last forever. But vanadium is pretty expensive to mine out of the soil. Maybe more problematically, you have to use a strong sulfuric acid solution to get enough vanadium to dissolve in the electrolyte to make the energy density sufficient to be really useful, and that makes a vanadium battery pretty dangerous. In addition, the concentrated sulfuric acid electrolyte tends to want to eat up everything it touches, especially the ion membrane, which tends to be pretty expensive.

I think some combination of nuclear power (hopefully the MSR type) and really great battery storage technology (my money is on flow batteries or maybe the sulfur technologies) offer us the best path forward. I don't think electrical farming will happen in my lifetime, but if you have good power sources, you can make acceptable fuel literally out of thin air. I'd like to see it happen.

If you've successfully read through my little essay, congratulations! You're as big a geek as I am. (You can take this as a compliment or as an insult, but it's meant as a simple statement of fact. You geek.)

I try my best to educate myself on topics as much as possible before commenting on them, but nuclear fission is a tough one. I think there will always be hesitancy so long as there are people alive who remember Chernobyl and the Cold War. My understanding of Chernobyl is that it was the result of a combination of spectacular negligence and rabid jingoism (the kind of jingoism that led both us and the Soviets to dedicate government resources trying to draw up contingency plans to nuke the moon if it looked like the other side might beat us there. Yes, really.) I think nuclear energy is currently our best and most sustainable energy option. Political will is the biggest obstacle. I think your side is more on board than mine, but the far Left is slowly warming up to it.

I'm curious about your thoughts on geothermal. There's been a big push locally to use geothermal energy to reduce reliance on traditional electrical grids and gas to generate heat, a precious commodity in this part of the country. The organization I volunteer for is on board with it and has been a big advocate, but I'm a bit out of the loop on the technical details because my team is focused on health care reform. The only major drawback that I know of is that it could potentially cause earthquakes, which isn't exactly a trivial consideration. But OTOH, it makes a lot of sense to use the Earth's natural and abundant heat to replace fossil fuels and potentially give us a more palatable alternative to nuclear energy.

Edited May 1 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

When it comes to nuclear energy, I'm both glad and utterly disappointed that the Democrats finally removed anti-nuclear language from it's party platform in the past few years.    I'm both glad and utterly disappointed that they're finally in favor of it.  If my side takes a hit for being anti-science and anti-truth when it comes to our more whacky anti-vax covid conspiracy stuff, then the establishment left surely gets to take a hit for being anti-science and anti-truth over the last several decades, getting votes by pandering to folks' fears and maybe the coal industry.

Politics aside, Robert Hays from North Carolina University makes an awful lot of sense to me.   Spending 30 minutes watching half a dozen of his TikToks is a worthy pursuit.  Dude addresses criticisms and issues and questions around all things nuclear. 

 

Edited May 1 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

From a secular perspective, our planet is spiraling towards unsustainable population growth and slowing down human reproduction might not be a bad thing. In fact, it might be the logical thing. I'm not talking about ceasing procreation entirely. Short of a "Children of Men" scenario (great movie, can't recommend enough) or nuclear holocaust, I don't see population growth ever stopping. We don't all need to be baby factories. I realize your religion tells you the exact opposite. I'm an atheist because I often find religious ideas, like sustained population growth, to be illogical.

Thank you for posting and adding another perspective.  As a scientist (secular perspective) the rarest commodity of this universe is life as we know it here on earth.  This universe is collectively hostile in every way to this earth life.  So much so that science has not found solid evidence that life exist anywhere else – especially intelligent life.  Nor has science proven that the circumstance for the generation of life could exist anywhere in this universe.  Obviously, we do not understand the genesis of life enough to replicate it ourselves – which would indicate that we should not omit any option – especially the option of divine intelligence.   I am somewhat disappointed that you have openly declared that you have eliminated the option of superior (divine) intelligence.  I do not believe you (or anyone) have the proof or logic (science) necessary for such a conclusion.

Science has proven to be capable of solving the problems of population you are referencing.  As societies have become knowledgeable and capable of birth control – all the proof and example of controlling over populations is known to exist.  There is no reason to limit population increases through any other means other than individual choice of a woman becoming pregnant by intent.  Currently the populations of “enlightened” societies has moved the needle so far that our USA (as well as Western societies and developed countries worldwide) will, if current trends continue, decline and fail without immigration from undeveloped countries.  As the world moves towards a class I (Kardashev Scale) civilization – without a change of attitude among our educated and economically solvent population – our civilization will fade away (be eliminated by evolution).

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said:

I try my best to educate myself on topics as much as possible before commenting on them, but nuclear fission is a tough one. I think there will always be hesitancy so long as there are people alive who remember Chernobyl and the Cold War. My understanding of Chernobyl is that it was the result of a combination of spectacular negligence and rabid jingoism (the kind of jingoism that led both us and the Soviets to dedicate government resources trying to draw up contingency plans to nuke the moon if it looked like the other side might beat us there. Yes, really.) I think nuclear energy is currently our best and most sustainable energy option. Political will is the biggest obstacle. I think your side is more on board than mine, but the far Left is slowly warming up to it.

I'm curious about your thoughts on geothermal. There's been a big push locally to use geothermal energy to reduce reliance on traditional electrical grids and gas to generate heat, a precious commodity in this part of the country. The organization I volunteer for is on board with it and has been a big advocate, but I'm a bit out of the loop on the technical details because my team is focused on health care reform. The only major drawback that I know of is that it could potentially cause earthquakes, which isn't exactly a trivial consideration. But OTOH, it makes a lot of sense to use the Earth's natural and abundant heat to replace fossil fuels and potentially give us a more palatable alternative to nuclear energy.

 

I believe that it ought to be obvious that our earth has all the sustainable resources necessary for life and the evolution of life here.  And that there is such an abundance that we, as a human race, ought to be able to move out into our solar system for a variety of reasons.   It ought to be possible to utilize plants and photosynthesis to create carbon molecules that will make the use of “fossil” fuels completely sustainable.  Such technology would eliminate entirely all concerns that carbon dioxide is causing global warming or climate change – since carbon dioxide is necessary for plant life and photosynthesis.

Nuclear fission is a resource that could be more utilized as well as nuclear fusion (if we can figure out a sustainable source of neutrinos).  There are many options.  We could improve current tech a great deal.  For example, rather than transferring heat from gas to gas, it could be more efficient transferring heat from gas to liquid to gas.

 A great deal of advancement could take place if we could just figure out how to mass produce nanotubes (a carbon-based molecule).  This would solve not only heating challenges but cooling (air conditioning) as well.  As for providing more food – Tesla suggested that we could excite the ozone layer (causing it to become fluorescent) which could triple the amount of food we grow.  We can also use various forms of energy to desalinate ocean water for irrigation (especially hydroponics in sandy deserts) with a byproduct of clean hydrogen fuel.

We are at the threshold of solving many problems - with the exception of how to get along with each other and end wars.  I would suggest that religion could help with that – but the opposite seems to be true.  We have found that the concept of human love through religion (especially mixed with politics) can be a really good engine of war.  But then if one is still concerned with over population – why change that?  😎

 

The Traveler