Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by identity-X, Jun 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    You didn't post it right, so I fixed it for you.
    Mainly so I could see what you posted.
    But, also for everyone else.

    Interesting debate here.

    If homosexuality is on the rise simply because it is being propagated to the public through the mass media, then that could be viewed as a form of genocide. But, the question is this . . . "Is the media creating more homosexuals or is the number of homosexuals pretty much the same as it has always been and only appear to be higher in numbers because people are able to be honest about their sexual preferences?"

    The Greeks preferred homosexual relations over heterosexual relations . . .
    That didn't stop them from growing in numbers and becoming Romans and eventually Europeans, did it?

    A huge majority of America's politicians actually prefer men over women, but they still marry and reproduce.
    test
  2. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I've seen lesbians and homosexuals on television for years and that has never made me want to have sex with another man . . . so, if one were to compare it to a biological weapon/chemical/etc that forces one to become a homosexual, that would be a fallacy. Even if the media acted as though the vast majority of human beings were homosexuals, that would not convince heterosexuals that they are homosexual, unless they want to be convinced (which in that case they wouldn't actually be a heterosexual . . . they would be a homosexual who has been convinced that they are a heterosexual)

    There are numerous holes in Ghet's argument, but that doesn't change the fact that he took ID-X off the board.
    test
  3. Oooo... all of a sudden, propaganda and forcing one's views on a population are not the same!

    Care to explain why mass media indulgence in plastic surgery (from commericals to TV shows to movies) has INCREASED behavior that allows plastic surgery? Or are they not linked in the fucking slightest? Care to explain how Mao, using his absolute control over advertising, managed to convince 25% of the human population to sit and accept wathcing 20 million of their own starve in a single year form his own policies? Or does mass media have absolutely ZERO effect on human behavior whatsoever?

    So how are you, defender of homophilia, going to tell me that 1.) the human brain is this wonderfully plastic thing that is adaptable and yet say that 2.) advertising homosexuality on NATIONAL campaigns absolutely does not qualify as forcing a population to promote homosexuality?

    THis isn't fishing. You said forcing homosexuality on a population is eventual genocide. I agree. Now you are back tracking, and saying that propaganda is not forcing. In any other arguemnt, you would be balls to the walls crazy about how propaganda forces us to vote for Bush.
    test
  4. And while we are at it, does the number of people who are genetically predispositioned to appreciate the influence that fascism has over them rise when people promote an idea that Tyranny is acceptable... or have the number of people that enjoy living under a tyrant always remained the same, but are simply more prone to being persecuted in a Western Democracy and thus, their numbers are masked?

    You can apply that insane argument to ANYTHING and still have nothing answered. Therefore, you are asking the wrong question.

    I've read countless books that say genetic technology is currently unable to link genes with complex human neurobehavior yet. Homosexuality is no exception.
    test
  5. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    nowhere...ever...did I say it doesn't have effects.

    we were talking about a bomb that would "force" people to be homosexual (something purely hypothetical). you claimed that advertising and media images showing homosexual lifestyles (something not hypothetical) is the same.

    until there are huge jumps in the number of homosexuals or until large numbers of people start saying "yeah, Ellen and Rosie are responsible for me being attracted to members of the same sex" it won't be the same.

    not hard to follow....

    the initial post was about forcing people to be homosexual.

    showing media that promote or show homosexuality in a positive light is not the same as forcing people to be homosexual

    i chose the answer based on the black nd white options you provided. when pushed for more I further explained myself.



    maybe I misinterpreted your initial comment. I assume when you say "forcing homosexuality upon people" you mean "forcing them to be gay" because, after all, that is what the thread was about. yes? no?
    test
  6. We have many historical examples of how mass media can be deployed as a weapon to convince entire populations to murder each other, watch each other starve, and to rally against things.

    Do you believe that, somehow, our sexual preference is not alterable if enough people say a certain behavior is okay? Because as for other primal emotional functions our brain associates our reality with, such as empathy or rage, well... just take a look in the last 100 years and tell me how much mass media, when deployed offensively upon a population, had no effect on those.
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    And heterosexuality is?
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Any belief can be altered with the right stimulation.
    In fact, your identity has been altered time and time again since you were born. Your parents named you and created a label for your face and your body and they taught you other things and you (and others) began to establish an identity for that form. Then you began to add onto that identity as you grew older and started making choices (but of course your choices were influenced by their influence) and time after time you redefine yourself but Ghet today is not Ghet 10 years ago and Ghet ten years ago was not the same as Ghet 10 years from now. If you can alter yourself then what makes you think you cannot be altered by others? You are an identity that was created by somebody else (or multiple people). What makes you think that your trying to convince us is not you trying to alter us?

    What are your motives? If you regard everybody who speaks with suspicion, for trying to convince you of their beliefs, then you must be viewed with suspicion for trying to convince them (or us).

    Your argument is completely flawed.
    Take a break and work it out.
    test
  9. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    agree with ID-X here,

    There is a difference between persuasion and force. A "gay bomb" would be more in line with force (assuming it uses chemicals and not say, ads!), whereas advertising is more in line with persuasion. To confound the two is absurd.

    As amazing as advertising is, most of ghet's examples that site totalitarianism to point to how effective propaganda is involve the use of both FORCE (and interest) and PERSUASION. Most are prone to accept arguments, if they lead to the result they desire.
    test
  10. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    what he said

    what he said
    test
  11. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Advertising is HIGHLY effective. It just doesn't "force" anything. The line has been towed, however, when groups tried to effect the psyche with subliminal messaging in the eighties, and that has proven illegal. Even having a captive audience is frowned upon in business organization law. Therefore, anything that would force homosexuality through advertising would be equally as illegal and would not work on a population that "didn't want it".

    Advertizing cannot force behavior out of people who are diametrically opposed to it, or even that aren't. All it can do is persuade them.

    Want proof? I listen to the radio all day. I do not buy everything advertised to me. I watch tv all day. I don't buy every soda I see a commercial for. In fact, the things I usually grow a fondness for at the grociery store gets discontinued. Such is the case for EVERYONE. Since EVERYONE is not copping EVERYTHING ADVERTISED, even to a significant extent, then ADVERTISEMENTS are not FORCING to the extent of someone dropping a bomb on you that makes you gay.

    Also, you need to only put the series of numbers and letters after the "=" in the youtube url for it to work.
    It is different in that the final decision is still yours. The bomb described was designed to take the decision for ass ramming out of the hands of the people by way of a bomb.
    No, that's not what he said. He specifically denoted the difference between "homosexuality" and the overwhelming compelling against heterosexual sex. He said that heterosexual sex whould have to be psychologically or physiologically painful in order for it to be eventual genocide, and he asked you to clarify if you meant forced homosexuality or forced homosexual sex.

    Granted, both of you are wrong as hell because a population of gays WILL figure out a way to reproduce even IF heterosexual sex were not enjoyable and were even painful. Maybe if this happened in the year one, but not now. We can even have two women reproduce effectively without cloning these days (meanwhile they don't do it).

    BTW: anyone else find it funny that this bomb was developed in the Bay Area? [dunno]
    test
  12. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    *shoots at him with his CP Six Shooter* This is where you fuckin' up your whole argument: He's talking about forcing behavior and you trying to make it seem like he's talking about forcing an ideology on someone. Forcing someone to hear you is different than forcing them to fuck you in the ass...[funny]
    remember what he said about seeing things in black and white? This would be it. identity has even conceded that it DOES have an effect on society. He doesn't think that gay media is making more people gay, but in order for what you said to have happen, it has to have more than just above zero effect. It has to be more than 25% of the population. It would have to be the vast and overwhelming majority of the populus deciding "Hey! I'm gonna be gay!"

    does the gay shit get on my nerves? Yeah. You know how I go, we've discussed this. Do I think it's eventual genocide? Not in the slightest. Not enough people are refusing to have hetero sex or what have you. A ton of people have kids they don't even want and gays are more than willing to adopt. Basically, even if homosexuality is on the rise, so is the population and the nations birthrate isn't exactly suffering due to homosexuality. [dunno]
    Forcing a population to PROMOTE homosexuality is overwhelmingly different than forcing a population to (a) BE homosexual, and (b) REFUSE to reproduce because of it.
    Where has he said THAT? THAT'S retarded. It may persuade morons and them to vote for bush, but force?
    test
  13. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    this is what happened...it was a sleight of hand on Ghet's part

    The original question...

    ...is asking about changing BEHAVIOR, but then he posted this...

    ...where he is talking about forcing homosexuality UPON (promoting it more regularly, in a more positive light, etc.) a population and, as Soultan put it, changing a person's IDEOLOGY.

    he then used took my response to the original question as my response for the second.



    sneaky sneaky....
    test
  14. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    This has to be the dumbest conversation ever to grace this site.

    First off, dropping a gaybomb would not be considered genocide.
    Genocide is very specific term.

    You're postulating a gaybomb would lead to nonexistence, But how would it lead to nonexistence when the artical clearly says it was meant for the Enemies? I'm sure a few civilians would become Homosexuals, but not the entire nation. When america dropped two A-bombs on Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki the entire population did not die out. And unlike the nuclear bomb the homosexual bomb won't result in radiation exposure. Plus, You never considered adoption or women artificially insemating themselves as an option to prevent your worse case scenario

    Your stating homosexuality is genocide? lol Do you even comprehend the homophobic stance behind this statement? Furthermore, is it genocide or more like psychological warfare?

    I don't have a clue what to call this rediculous therocial argument other than to call it completely ridiculous.

    The gay gene is supposedly inherited through the mother's X chromosome.
    So how would this bomb even work, unless what you're now telling me is there
    is no such thing as a inherited gay gene. And I don't by it that some sort of gay chemical whatever the fuck that would be exists let alone can make someone Gay... A gay bomb sounds like something Dr.Evil would be after in a austin powers movie.


    So if our government can make a Homosexual Bomb why wouldn't they make a heterosexual bomb and correct all the gays in America? Because there is no bomb existing that can change someones chromosomes giving them homosexual or heterosexual preferences.

    this is Fucking stupid argument.
    test
  15. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    ^^^I've never seen a point missed so well.
    test
  16. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    Well, not very. I mean, it was obvious as hell, and I don't think he meant to be "sneaky". I think his intention was motivated by how strongly he feels about homosexuality and propaganda in the media. That is what set him off and caused him to missinterpret what your point was so much that he couldn't even summarize it correctly. He wanted to believe you intended the second post (in re "ideology") because it is that one that he so much wants to argue: that the propagation of homosexuality in the current popular culture is an affront as against...idunno: nature?

    Can't say I disagree with him, but I wouldn't take it so far as to presume it's "genocide".
    test
  17. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    I don't even know who he's talking to [funny]
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    You have no point because your all being fucking retarded.

    Typical RM arguing just to argue.
    test
  19. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    I think Ghet (or the debate in this thread) raises an interesting point about advertising/shows that promotes being gay which is directed directed at children, since by their legal definition, children cannot consent to many things. Certain types of "persuasion" used on children, which is legal with adults, is considered illegal precisely for this reason when used on children.

    There are already regulations against the use of violent images and all sorts of other regulations for advertising/shows aimed at children, including the bringing up of sex implicitly in some areas. Why should shows that create "hero" role model gay characters be any different? (children are particularly susceptible to the influence of hero characters) Particularly when anal sex, the sexual behavior involved in being gay, is illegal for minors in most areas.

    One might retort that heterosexual relations are promoted on television. But are heterosexual and homosexual relations really the same thing? Can they be equivocated? By definition heterosexual relations involve both a pleasure component and a reproduction component, the later of which is necessary for human society to continue. Homosexual relations by contrast merely go to the pleasure component for some, perhaps they should be classified along the same lines as/equivocated to heterosexual sexual relations that are promiscuous. (with birth control) Drinking alcohol and smoking could also be considered in the same category. Maybe sexual promiscuity should not be promoted among those under 18 either, along with homosexual behavior. (in fact, i think it may be illegal by regulation... but, watching MTV, maybe not)

    But why should people sit around waiting for governments to take action with regulations?

    Assuming that education plays a role in sexual orientation, and a child is convinced that they are gay, but later in life find this not to be the case - should/could the sociology/psychology PHD who convinced the child otherwise be held liable for the consequences? Also, to those who write popular books/make TV shows, should/could they be held liable class action style for this? If so, maybe this would be the rectify the situation rather than simply huffing and puffing about it. What people fear more than anything is to have their property stripped from them. Its more effective then any government regulation with a minimal fine.

    The same actions could probably be taken against those who promote sexual promiscuity among young people, or promote things like drug use in children's programs. Perhaps the 28year old schizophrenics that began smoking pot when they were 12 have a case against snoop dogg?

    FYI, for adults (or even adolescents) i don't see any problems with promoting/advertising/shows with gay themes.
    test
  20. Yahu, your flaw is reliance on dialectics.

    Soul, your flaw is that I don't have my studio up yet, but I'm dumping like $3k into some nice shit! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Scion is my benefactor! These discussions are best left face to face as this silly internet thing makes us... different.

    McGirth, your flaw is that I respect you too much.

    Id-X, your flaw is you can't seperate the increasing population that declares themselves gay from the historical bias of cultural distain, and thus, pin all gains solely on that as attitudes shift.

    The only difference between a pile of nanobots rewiring a brain for specific hormonal imbalances and the language of propaganda which does the -SAME EXACT THING- is the degree of predictability. Choice is ultimately marginalized in both scenarios as it takes on such a dynamic definition in regards to social expectations, salary requirements, legal/moral enforcement, personal expectation, and so forth. Either way, entire populations are left helpless as they are exposed to forces much larger than them that simply thinking another way or turning off the TV doesn't solve.

    Again, the only difference between nanobots and propaganda is a degree of predictability. And that is hardly enough of a platform to discuss issues of personal choice because, again, the size of the advertising engines we are taking about are not only nationwide, but multinational wide. It's like throwing rocks at a tank. You have the CHOICE to do so, but such activity so signficantly marginalized (since, apples to apples, we are ultimately talking about efficiency) because of the force you are up against, such metaphysical hogwash can't even factor into play.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)