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. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    For example, to compare it to the institution of slavery, many blacks have long considered suing over the current effects of slavery cross generations. (i think rightly) I'm assuming tentatively the effects of slavery across generations could be established with studies using control groups, etc. ultimately the burden of proof wouldn't be at the level of a criminal trial, so don't think in terms of having to prove it absolutely. A decent effect size may do (i'm sure you know what this is if you do emperical research in sociology).

    others want to sue video-game makers for selling violent videogames to children, in effect they want them to be liable for things like columbine, etc.

    gender currently has not yet been fully deconstructed, or it hasn't been deconstructed long enough to see the effects at the mass scale. This may take time. Once gender is deconstructed for a while, and we can see the actual effects, which I'm assuming you don't actually think will be ALL good, do you? (for instance, free market capitalism has positive overt goals which were beleived when it was first adopted, but according to many marxists over hundreds of years later it caused many horrific negative consequences such as slavery, inequality, etc. )
    Do you think sociologist-feminists should be held liable, assuming their are negative consequences to the deconstruction of gender, much how many want to see liability for the effects of slavery across generations? (which i actually agree with, i think it should go to education, etc) Or how many feel capitalist politicians are responsible for all the social ills that come with capitalist, despite its explicit renaissance goals all being positive?

    Also, what do you think the standard of proof should be for attributing blame for these types of social phenomena, both in terms of earlier deconstructions of class (with capitalism, taking over from feudalism) and current deconstructions of gender?

    Obviously your an interested party here and don't want to incur any liability, as i said earlier, what men fear most is to loose their property - so I'm assuming your answer will be no.
    test
  2. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    sure, though it would depend on what constitutes "negative" (who decides, etc) and whether these are negative consequences of the deconstruction of gender per se or whether these negative consequences of the deconstruction of gender occur because they occur in society that constructs gender in a particular way. mass deconstruction of gender will yield different consequences in different locales, ya dig?

    and again...i'd hold traditionalist-conservatives liable for the negative consequences that occur as a result of gender being constructed in the same way for decades/centuries even when it becomes incompatible with the material world

    now THIS part is a different story. I haven't a clue. Had never thought about it.

    And I'm not sure what the response would be either [dunno]

    hmmmmmmmmmm...
    test
  3. ^ You can't hold traditional, localized mating rituals responsible for the negative ramifications of what is tantamount to the creation of a demographic based on synthetic descriptions of gender.

    Gender is a *PHYSICAL* state. This isn't about gender. Nothing in my post was about gender. Nothing about a gay bomb is gender-oriented. This entire argument is about altering the chemicals in a target's biological, physical construct to have either more testosterone or more estrogen for the duration of that person's life, and how this qualifies as eventual genocide.

    Incompatible with the physical world!? Millions of years of evolution has proven that gender seperation remains the end-all-be-all solution to DNA perpetuation in a chaotic universe. Do you, in your Socialist audacity, suggest that humanity has the collective brain power to attempt otherwise without negative results? How can you blame isolated humans in seperate tribes for doing what they do when it will be Socilaists who have had an extremely long history of forcing and regulating genders from state departments? Or will we devolve into a useless comparison of how the capitalist/imperialist infrastructure of procreation is unjust to the remainder of the other cells in the universe?

    You are still approaching each human as a blank slate, and I dunno if anyone told you, but 50 years and 700 million dead by total state control implimenting socialist experiments have proven that we are NOT blank slates.. they we carry forth evolutionary bias from what our ancestors had to do to survive. And what, we pack a few million people in a dozen square miles, add nifty technology, and all of a sudden, we are supposed to disregard HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years of evolutionary wiring? It doesn't work like that.

    You CANNOT deconstruct with the intention of isolation. You never could. We were just to stupid to see the larger dynamic the entire time. (Thanks, Marx, you fucking cunt.)
    test
  4. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    - gender is a social construct that has nothing to do with biology, genetics, or evolutionary wiring
    - as such, it varies across time and place
    - "when it becomes incompatible" was me, again, setting a boundary....noting a particular reality that must be necessaryif i were to suggest holding people liable for "negative consequences". it was NOT me stating
    - you can point out things that lead to "negative consequences" without blaming specific groups of people
    - am not sure what you're babbling about and i think it's because you seem to be using "sex" and "gender" interchangeably
    test
  5. 1.) So wrong it's not even funny. THere is a social PERCEPTION of Gender, but Gender is still a physical attribute that evolution has developed.

    2.) The Social PERCEPTION of Gender varies, but the PHYSICALLY ATTRIBUTE does not.

    3.) You seem hellbent on trying to blame a Capitalist for something. Why don't you explain a scenario in which evolution fails us and gender ceases to be a useful method of propigation?

    4.) I can, yes. You can't.

    5.) Get that Academic hairsplitting out of here like I can't tell the difference between political interests trying to capitalize off of sex and the physical fucking attributes.

    So, do you or do you not wish to address evolutionary bias? Or will you continue to hide under your ancient shell of plastic humanity? Because that is, ultimately, what this entire argument, and every argument we have is about.

    You think humans are a blank slate, infinitely malleable.

    I believe humans are bound to the "genetic echos" of previous habits that promoted surival from millions of years of evolution.
    test
  6. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    And, of course, the truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle.

    The neocortex is far more modern than almost anything else in the human body and CAN override a lot of the old evolutionary information. Yeah, yeah, I know: the neocortex is a product of evolution and is bound to its own limitations, but that's irrelevant to your point.
    test
  7. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    that's sex. sorry dude.

    nobody said anything about evolution failing us. i was talking how some of the ways in which we construct gender are responsible for "negative consequences" (Girth's words) because Girth was talking about how deconstructing gender might be responsible for "negative consequences"

    um...yes i can [dunno]

    i'm not going to call an apple an orange if apple more accurately describes the fruit

    maybe you missed that point I made numerous times, and to you specifically, about "biological influence" [dunno]

    that doesn't mean these genetic echos of previous habits occur in a social vaccum uninfluenced by social structure
    test
  8. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    take notes Ghet
    test
  9. It is still constructed from the ancient model of DNA expression, ultimately influenced by the limitations of not only the mechanical process, but also of it's entire evolutionary history. No matter how flexible something appears, it is only flexible within it's own systemic confines.
    test
  10. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    indeed.

    and acted out in ordinary everyday activity within the confines of social expectation, role, and structure.

    it can act outside of these confines, and often does, but not without a social response, punishment, judgement. all i'm saying is it's ludicrous to think laws, customs, and a thousand other facets of social structure do not influence our behavior
    test
  11. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Right, but the neocortex expanded the systemic confines of human behaviour... so to talk of evolutionary bias based on evolution from millions of years ago isn't strictly true, especially when talking about the neocortex because if its implications.
    test
  12. While it is the new comer on the scene, it still comes as a different configuration of what was already in place.

    http://www.duke.edu/~fellous/pubs/Emotion-HBTNN2e-preprint.pdf
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny] @ the ass whipping McGirth gave Menaz

    It's like nobody else even caught it. McGirth just came in, spanked the shit out of Menaz and then went back to what he was doing, leaving Menaz angry and holding his inflamed ass, waving a finger around in the air.

    I'm getting some funny ass visuals over here. I can't help but picture a dad spanking his son and then the son running up to his room, locking his door and kicking, punching and threatening the walls, his pillow or some other inhuman form.

    Menaz just got fathered by McGirth
    test
  14. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    aye, fair enough. One way was, as mentioned, to hold liable the most obvious offenders, i.e. advertisers/television shows that are aimed at children and are broadcasting questionable material, probably influencing their development. These things could be established using standard legal tests, and pursued in a class action for all those who suffered an injury to their lives.


    One idea for the prudent adoption of post-modern values that involve things as transformative as the deconstruction of gender, is that they could be treated in the same sort of way the testing of medical products in treated on the population. They could go through a sort of clinical trial. For instance, things like gay adoption and so forth could be put to a test in a certain area (in phase 2 of testing), 20-25 years from now we could see the results on children. If the results were positive, we could then expand nationally, and so forth.

    This is much better in the long run for both conservatives and post-moderns then framing things as "rights", as things demanded nationally for all "right now" regardless of the consequences.
    Better for post-moderns because it gives their projects credibility is the test phase works out well. Better for conservatives because it helps elay their issues about the effects that things like being raised by gay parents would have no children.
    The same thing could have been done for divorce laws a while back, but it wasn't, it was framed as "rights" discourse, and as a result you had divorce rates skyrocketing and alot of maladjusted people who grew up in divorced households running around today repeating the same patterns as their parents. Also there are alot of isolated old people that were once married and are now alone,elderly, and miserable - including women. If they had trial runs testing out different laws, i think its highly likely that they would have found something better for all parties involved and even more respectful of human rights, since these tested solutions actually take into account the actual human condition of people that have to live in the world (their emperical reality), and not simply of abstract right-bearing human entities (humans 'in theory').
    test
  15. McGirth is almost there.

    It's not that divorce was framed in a RIGHTS discourse because that's just how it happened to be.

    It was framed in a RIGHTS discourse because that is how one controls populations in an elective government.

    Tyrants use laws. Senators use rights.

    The entire female rights argument is one of the greatest examples of driving a herd of elephants off a cliff. I just got done explaining this to Brit Boi Gee (and left a link to the book) that can fundamentally explain how female rights can naturally take shape WITHOUT a single moral/rights argument.

    1.) You just got over a war in your traditional feudal country. Most of your male population is dead, wounded, scattered, and otherwise out of commissio. Viola! Women can work, too!

    2.) You sat down and you said to yourself "Only half of our population is performing taxable labor? Hmmm... we need more money in our coffers for wars or government projects... I know... let's convince the other half (females) that working 12 hours a day in a factory under shitty conditions IS A RIGHT!"

    3.) We, the government, have to tighten our grip on the population. Make divorce actionable and force it to redistribute wealth. This will add yet another obstacle in which people have to overcome if they wish to challenge us.

    Now none of this can translate to a civilian level with any degree of ease. SO, you begin to frame an arugment as a rights argument. And all of a sudden, everyone wants a piece of the action, no matter how many hours you are put to work in a chemical factory!

    Rights are the opiate of the masses. Every argument *HAS* to be framed like that when an agenda hits a level where popular support is needed in an elective government. Best of all, instead of the whip of a tyrant where the lash leaves a trail to a responsible party, the ramification of rights are ALWAYS spinnable, ALWAYS self-inflicted, and leave those in power completely free of blame.

    We are witnessing it right now with this entire gay argument as we speak. Social "scientists" are working their hardest to add a false layer of credibility instead of asking the question "How can people in power benefit from convincing a population that faggoholism is a right? Who stands to gain what and what are the ramifications?"
    test
  16. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    you need a hug Ghet
    test
  17. And you need to stop retreating to moral righteousness of the masses as an end-all-be-all and start questioning who stands to gain from creating demographics like this?

    Shoulder of Giants. I posted it here last week.

    It's an interpretation of history that is materialist and doesn't have one drop of Marxist morality.
    test
  18. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    i always question who stands to gain from advocatin anything from an economic system, religion, government, whatever. it's the morally righteous thing to do.

    (((hugs)))
    test
  19. Then do so on this topic.
    test
  20. identity-X

    identity-X No Talent Assclown

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    14,025
    okay...

    "who stands to gain from the creation of a 'gay bomb'?"

    gay people?
    non-whites?
    the poor?

    nope...


    discuss
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

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