[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-10-2014 11:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

These two groups of people have exactly the same likelihood of engaging in terrorism.

This is what Sargon of Akkad actually believes.

So, you're in significantly more danger around a random group of Arab people than a random group of Japanese?

Should you be afraid the next time you see an Arab walking down the street...?

[Wutang]

(07-10-2014 11:09 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Religious fundamentalism is the major reason for the existence of homophobia. If it were evolutionary, you wouldn't find so many ancient cultures that were so into boy-fucking.

Disagree. If you talk to a lot of Chinese that are say 35+ in age you'll find lots of them are against gay marriage. You can't say it's due to the long history of Christianity or the influence of Abrahamic religions in China.

I should add that at this point in time there is no place in East Asia where anyone can get a gay marriage while in the supposely fanatically religious and puritanical United States there are 15+ states where gays can get married.

And why do you think religions have attempted to curtail homosexual behavior? Is it arbitary?

[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-11-2014 12:05 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 11:09 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Religious fundamentalism is the major reason for the existence of homophobia. If it were evolutionary, you wouldn't find so many ancient cultures that were so into boy-fucking.

Disagree. If you talk to a lot of Chinese that are say 35+ you'll find lots of them are against gay marriage. You can't say it's due to the long history of Christianity or Islam in China.

I should add that at this point in time there is no place in East Asia where anyone can get a gay marriage while in the supposely fanatically religious and puritanical United States there are 15+ states where gays can get married.

True, but consider all the pederasty that existed in pre-modern China and Japan. I can understand why These societies would be opposed to gay marriage, since marriage has traditionally been about inheritance and continuing the family line. Still pederasty in ancient China and Japan kind of makes the idea of homophobia being something instinctual somewhat questionable at best.

Quote:

And why do you think religions have attempted to curtail homosexual behavior? Is it arbitary?

Religions often tend to frown upon a lot of sexual practices that don't involve reproduction. Homosexuality is in the same category in the Bible as fornication and adultery. Pedophilia is also surprisingly absent in the list of "thou shalt not"'s in the Abrahamic religions.

[scorpion]

(07-10-2014 11:58 PM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(07-10-2014 11:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

These two groups of people have exactly the same likelihood of engaging in terrorism.

This is what Sargon of Akkad actually believes.

So, you're in significantly more danger around a random group of Arab people than a random group of Japanese?

Should you be afraid the next time you see an Arab walking down the street...?

You should ask your son's gay babysitter these questions if you're so confused about the world.

[Quintus Curtius]

This is an interesting thread.

While homosexuality in one form or another has existed across many centuries in nearly every society, its manifestation was always socially circumscribed within certain boundaries. Rarely was it openly celebrated, and never (until our own time) was it viewed as forming a rational basis for marriage. We must conclude, from this historical experience, that homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

As the human sexual impulse is one of the strongest and most fundamental, abnormal sexual behavior in any form certainly needs no encouragement or endorsement for it to flare out of control.

Even in ancient Greece (which gay groups love to use as a supposed "example" of homosexuality's lineage), the practice arose in response to very specific social conditions.

I will first say that--it is true--homosexuality was common ancient Hellenic society, as well as in ancient Persia and likely India as well. Athenian law disenfranchised those who practiced it, but this law was rarely enforced. In Thebes and Sparta, it was accepted as a valuable source of military cohesion and bravery. The members of Plato's dialogue Symposium concur that the love between man and man is nobler and more spiritual that that between man and woman.

Alcibiades of Athens boasted of his quantity of male lovers; and lyric poets who wrote of "love" usually were referring to homosexual love (as did many Roman poets, and occasionally medieval Arabic love poets like Abu Nuwas).

In ancient Athens, a similar behavior pattern was found among many Greek women. The ancient pornaia were hotbeds of lesbianism, and the poet Sappho sang eloquently of love between women.

Aristotle believed that the Greek tolerance of homosexuality was due to a subconscious fear of overpopulation in a land that could not support a huge number of people. This may be part of the explanation. But more convincing is the fact that ancient Greek society had a very high degree of separation between the genders.

After the age of 6, the boys of Periclean Athens were raised mostly in contact with other boys, away from the attentions of women. They had little opportunity, in their formative sexual years, for contact with members of the opposite sex. Youths knew mostly the male form only; even art rarely celebrated the charms of women until the advent of Praxiteles.

And for married Greek men of that period, men found little (if any) mental companionship at their homes. They spent most of their time in the city, in the company of other men. Women were secluded, to much the same extent that women in Saudi Arabia today are segregated from men. The custom may have been an importation from ancient Persia. Women were for cooking, child-rearing, and procreating. Not until Renaissance Italy or Enlightenment France do we find women playing a significant role in society's intellectual life.

In any case, my point is that homosexuality in ancient Greece was a product of very particular social circumstances. But even for the ancient Hellenes, the very thought of homosexual "marriage" would have been repellent. They would have thought it ridiculous. Men were expected to treat their homosexual dalliances as diversions or amusements, as expressions of power or mentorship of an older man for a younger boy.

The issue is complex, and has many nuances. I think the most we can say is that, in every age and for every civilization, there must be some moral code that achieves general acceptance. Without such a code, there is no order. Sex is one of the most powerful impulses, and unless there is some way to keep it in check, the public order and health is threatened.

I do find myself in general agreement with Scorpion's conclusion that sexual license in modern society has been allowed to go too far. All sorts of depravities, perversions, and socially deviant behavior are now accepted as normal that operate as a net detriment to society. Where all this leads, is inevitable falling populations, sterility, and decline. Just because homosexuality has always existed does not mean that we should rush to embrace it and portray it as normal.

Yes, morals have changed over time, very slowly. But that does not mean they are worthless. It only proves the flexibility of moral codes to adapt themselves to various climates, geographies, and peoples.

[KorbenDallas]

I don't understand what your statement, "pederasty existed in Ancient China and Japan" has to do with anything.


What point are you trying to make? That since it went on back then, that it should be permitted today?

Pederasty, in my opinion, is a very serious offense, very close to murder.

The fact is that gays are repulsive to people on an instinctual level. I was watching a stupid TV show called the "Tyrant" tonight, with a girlfriend of mine, and she reacted with disgust when one of the characters was doing gay shit with his boyfriend. She said something like, "Oopps, I didn't mean that" afterward, and I said, "don't worry, I agree, it's normal to be weirded out by perverts, it's similar to how us guys are disgusted with fat chicks".

I haven't done the research, and until some of Vox Popoli's recent revelations concerning the predominance of child rape among Science Fiction leftists, I never connected the dots, but if you take the time to look into gay culture, I think you will find that it is observably true that gays are the biggest pederasts.

Sargon, I hope your just misinformed. Fucking with little kids isn't cool.

[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-11-2014 12:39 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

I don't understand what your statement, "pederasty existed in Ancient China and Japan" has to do with anything.


What point are you trying to make? That since it went on back then, that it should be permitted today?

Pederasty, in my opinion, is a very serious offense, very close to murder.

The fact is that gays are repulsive to people on an instinctual level. I was watching a stupid TV show called the "Tyrant" tonight, with a girlfriend of mine, and she reacted with disgust when one of the characters was doing gay shit with his boyfriend. She said something like, "Oopps, I didn't mean that" afterward, and I said, "don't worry, I agree, it's normal to be weirded out by perverts, it's similar to how us guys are disgusted with fat chicks".

I haven't done the research, and until some of Vox Popoli's recent revelations concerning the predominance of child rape among Science Fiction leftists, I never connected the dots, but if you take the time to look into gay culture, I think you will find that it is observably true that gays are the biggest pederasts.

Sargon, I hope your just misinformed. Fucking with little kids isn't cool.

You completely misunderstood my point. The point was not that should be accepted today, only that if it's prevailance in the ancient world would dispute the notion that we're all biologically hardwired to hate gay people.

As for Quintius Curtius' comments, yes every society should have prohibitions regarding certain kinds of sexual behavior, but criteria by which you decide on those prohibitions is crucial. As far as I'm concerned, the only important question is "is anyone harmed by the act?" Two adults of the same sex engaging in consentual sexual activity harms absolutely no one. Two adults deciding to get married effects no one other than those involved. Child sexual abuse does cause harm, reardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim. There is the difference. No further discussion on the matter is necessary.

[svenski7]

The last 50 years of European history have been all about watering down religion into something laughable and supporting "alternative" ways of life such as homosexuality, hippie/green movement, anti-gun culture, third-world immigration, etc.

Religion in Western Europe is dead.

We have Scandinavian forum members who don't see feminist political parties in their home countries as anything to take seriously or be concerned about.

The difference between the Western European and North American mindset on these things is similar to the difference between Evangelical Christians in Texas and "gay-friendly" churches who have rainbows in their windows in Seattle.

The thing about it is that, by the time these two different cultures meet on an internet forum, there is no way to change their point-of-view. There isn't much change in core beliefs and personality after age 23-25 unless its a political "change of heart."

Have you ever tried talking to the vast majority of Europeans/Australians/Kiwis/Brits about firearms? Gay marriage? Global warming? Feminism? Very few have unplugged from the matrix that is what their public schools have taught them. And by the time the public schools have pounded Core Curriculum into their heads for 12-15 years...its pretty much over.

There is a war on for hearts and minds and a huge part of the fight overlooked by many who call themselves "red pill" is public education AKA the Prussian school system. Forget about whether or not you would let a gay babysit your children. Why are you letting a government bureaucrat teach your children? Aren't we missing the boat by posting on here while we pay property and sale tax to socialize our childrens' education? Isn't this where it all begins?

PS: If the school district hires a homosexual to teach and the public PRUSSIAN school system is just daycare...then doesn't that make that gay teacher your child's babysitter???

[Vicious]

Akula, it's not a belief. It's the very definition of pedophilia.
If you deny this very basic fact, that any dictionary (medical or legal) can confirm if you bothered looking, then all subsequent data becomes irrelevant since the premise is faulty.
This is why Scorpion's figures are bunk.

[Bushido]

@Sargon

There is a big difference between hating gays and not wanting to leave your 8 year old son alone at home with one.
There is a big difference between hating Arabs and not wanting to get killed by taking your vacation in Pakistan.
There is a big difference between hating blacks and not wanting to get mugged by walking in dangerous areas of the city where whites are often attacked.
There is a big difference between hating women and not wanting to get divorce raped by one.

[Cattle Rustler]

Considering your strong dislike for Obama, I'm sure you don't mind the picture below.
This is what scorpion actually believes.

(07-10-2014 11:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

[AnonymousBosch]

(07-11-2014 12:48 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

You completely misunderstood my point. The point was not that should be accepted today, only that if it's prevailance in the ancient world would dispute the notion that we're all biologically hardwired to hate gay people.

Except the Vikings weren't christian fundamentalists, and they shamed men who got fucked by other men as unmasculine and as objects of ridicule, and had a word for those men who wouldn't get married. It meant "Man who flees the female sex organ".

Quote:

Old Norse Terminology Regarding Homosexuality and Related Concepts

The Old Norse word used in the law code and literature for an insult was níð , which may be defined as "libel, insult, scorn, lawlessness, cowardice, sexual perversion, homosexuality" (Markey 75). From níð are derived such words as níðvisur ("insulting verses"), níðskald ("insult-poet"), níðingr ("coward, outlaw"), griðníðingr ("truce-breaker"), níðstông ("scorn-pole") (Markey 75, 79 & 80; Sørenson 29), also níða ("to perform níð poetry"), tunguníð ("verbal níð"), tréníð ("timber níð", carved or sculpted representations of men involved in a homosexual act, related to niíðstông, above) (Sørenson 28-29). Níð was part of a family of concepts which all have connotations of passive male homosexuality, such as: ergi or regi (nouns) and argr or ragr (the adjective form of ergi) ("willing or inclined to play or interested in playing the female part in sexual relations with another man, unmanly, effeminate, cowardly"); ergjask ("to become argr"); rassragr ("arse-ragr"); stroðinn and sorðinn ("sexually used by a man") and sansorðinn ("demonstrably sexually used by another man") (Sørenson 17-18, 80). A man who is a seiðmaðr (one who practices women's magic) who is argr is called seiðskratti (Sørenson 63).

[scorpion]

Cattle Rustler somehow makes the most worthless post in a thread which has now featured pictures of Sargon of Akkad's degenerate homosexual babysitters.

That's some impressive shitposting, hombre.

But really, if you're going to come off the bleachers and take a pot shot at me, at least make it a good one.

[Vicious]

Anonymousbosch, you left out the most culturally significant part. That it was only shameful to be the woman in homosexual sex. No word of scorn was present for the pitcher.

Pretty amusing actually, I remember reading somewhere that Vikings had a prison like attitude to gay sex, as long as you're not the prag you'd be given a pass.

[infowarrior1]

The demonization of male sexuality which involves protecting women from sexual subjugation came from the old feminist movement:

http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id614

Among those proposal is to raise the age of consent.

[Feisbook Control]

Even the Walking Dead has an actress who plays a lesbian character.

I remarked to someone that she wouldn't be allowed to be a lesbian. My interlocutor didn't understand, so I said that in a post-apocalyptic world, women would be forced, if necessary, to make babies. Any group that wished to survive would have to become extremely patriarchal and focused on propagation as a survival strategy pretty quickly. My interlocutor thought that would be horrible (for the lesbian), and whilst clearly couldn't quite admit it, also couldn't deny it.

[Tobias Funke]

(07-11-2014 03:49 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Even the Walking Dead has an actress who plays a lesbian character.

I remarked to someone that she wouldn't be allowed to be a lesbian. My interlocutor didn't understand, so I said that in a post-apocalyptic world, women would be forced, if necessary, to make babies. Any group that wished to survive would have to become extremely patriarchal and focused on propagation as a survival strategy pretty quickly. My interlocutor thought that would be horrible (for the lesbian), and whilst clearly couldn't quite admit it, also couldn't deny it.

Pretty much every lesbian (the non-slutty ones) became that way due to feeling inadequate around men. So in the wake of society melting away, so would those feelings of fear and resentment towards men. Talk about a silver lining.

Anyway, Russia has the right idea about gays. Don't tolerate it or shame your citizens for hating homosexuality, but don't persecute it too heavily. Murdering people for fucking members of the same sex is barbaric, keep that wild animal shit in the Islamic countries. But banning the spread of homosexual propaganda is a wonderful idea, children are extremely impressionable and don't need to be exposed to that garbage. Spend a bit of time on tumblr and you'll see how warped teenage minds have become in this day and age: http://leofurry.tumblr.com/about There's no way things could've gotten this bad if sexual bolshevism had never sunk its tendrils into the west 50 years ago.

[Feisbook Control]

(07-11-2014 04:08 AM)Tobias Funke Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:49 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Even the Walking Dead has an actress who plays a lesbian character.

I remarked to someone that she wouldn't be allowed to be a lesbian. My interlocutor didn't understand, so I said that in a post-apocalyptic world, women would be forced, if necessary, to make babies. Any group that wished to survive would have to become extremely patriarchal and focused on propagation as a survival strategy pretty quickly. My interlocutor thought that would be horrible (for the lesbian), and whilst clearly couldn't quite admit it, also couldn't deny it.

Pretty much every lesbian (the non-slutty ones) became that way due to feeling inadequate around men. So in the wake of society melting away, so would those feelings of fear and resentment towards men. Talk about a silver lining.

Anyway, Russia has the right idea about gays. Don't tolerate it or shame your citizens for hating homosexuality, but don't persecute it too heavily. Murdering people for fucking members of the same sex is barbaric, keep that wild animal shit in the Islamic countries. But banning the spread of homosexual propaganda is a wonderful idea, children are extremely impressionable and don't need to be exposed to that garbage. Spend a bit of time on tumblr and you'll see how warped teenage minds have become in this day and age: http://leofurry.tumblr.com/about There's no way things could've gotten this bad if sexual bolshevism had never sunk its tendrils into the west 50 years ago.

I just looked at that link. I think I need to use Google Translate. I see Chinese. I see Spanish. I see French. There's no option for "Fucking Weirdo".

[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-11-2014 12:52 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

@Sargon

There is a big difference between hating Arabs and not wanting to get killed by taking your vacation in Pakistan.

No, not wanting to travel to Pakistan or to certain Arab countries for fear of your safety doesn't make you a bigot. Thinking that you're in danger simply by being in the presence of a Muslim or letting a Muslim teach in schools would make you a bigot.

*This is beside the point, but Pakistan is not an Arab Country, anymore than Japan is a "Chinese country" or Ireland is an "Italian country" for being Catholic.

Quote:

There is a big difference between hating blacks and not wanting to get mugged by walking in dangerous areas of the city where whites are often attacked.

Again, you're right that avoiding certain (poor) Black neighbourhoods for fear of your safety doesn't make you a racist. However, the analogy with countries and neighbourhoods is not accurate. A better analogy would be not allowing a Black person into your home because you think he'll rob you.

Likewise, not wanting to go rawdogging in Affrica doesn't make you a bigot per se. Refusing to allow your daughter to date a Black man because you think he has AIDs, however, would not only make one a bigot, but pretty ignorant.

There's no difference between these scenarios and Scorpion's irrational "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" hysteria. Assuming that gay men are going to molest your chidlren is no less absurd and ridiculous than not allowing your daughter to date a Black man because you think he's probably a drug dealer who has AIDs.

--------------

If Scorpion had grown up 60 years ago, he'd be posting pictures of the poorest, most fucked up-looking Black men he could find, shouting "Hey, it's Sargon of Akkad's new son in law! Look, they're just like you and me! This is what Sargon of Akkad actually believes"

[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-11-2014 01:00 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Except the Vikings weren't christian fundamentalists, and they shamed men who got fucked by other men as unmasculine and as objects of ridicule, and had a word for those men who wouldn't get married. It meant "Man who flees the female sex organ".

Most ancient societies frowned upon men who were penetrated by other men, not those who were doing the penetrating. That example doesn't really dispute my point.

[AnonymousBosch]

(07-11-2014 04:39 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

Most ancient societies frowned upon men who were penetrated by other men, not those who were doing the penetrating. That example doesn't really dispute my point.

Not when you selectively change what you're saying when it suits you, no.

[Samseau]

(07-11-2014 04:26 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:52 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

@Sargon

There is a big difference between hating Arabs and not wanting to get killed by taking your vacation in Pakistan.

No, not wanting to travel to Pakistan or to certain Arab countries for fear of your safety doesn't make you a bigot. Thinking that you're in danger simply by being in the presence of a Muslim or letting a Muslim teach in schools would make you a bigot.

*This is beside the point, but Pakistan is not an Arab Country, anymore than Japan is a "Chinese country" or Ireland is an "Italian country" for being Catholic.

Yeah, no one has any idea what you're talking about.

Japan is an Asian or Oriental country. Ireland is a Caucasian country, just like Pakistan is an Arab country.

This isn't difficult.

By the way - I'd never let a Muslim teach my kids anything.

[Sargon of Akkad]

(07-11-2014 05:07 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:26 AM)Sargon of Akkad Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:52 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

@Sargon

There is a big difference between hating Arabs and not wanting to get killed by taking your vacation in Pakistan.

No, not wanting to travel to Pakistan or to certain Arab countries for fear of your safety doesn't make you a bigot. Thinking that you're in danger simply by being in the presence of a Muslim or letting a Muslim teach in schools would make you a bigot.

*This is beside the point, but Pakistan is not an Arab Country, anymore than Japan is a "Chinese country" or Ireland is an "Italian country" for being Catholic.

Yeah, no one has any idea what you're talking about.

Japan is an Asian or Oriental country. Ireland is a Caucasian country, just like Pakistan is an Arab country.

This isn't difficult.

My God, are you really that ignorant??

Pakistan is not an Arab country. Pakistanis are Indo-Aryans. Other than their religion, they share more of their language, culture and history with India. Arab is an ethno-linguistic group, like Slavic, Greek, or Chinese. This is like saying England is a Russian/Slavic country because both cultures are predominantly Christian.

Quote:

By the way - I'd never let a Muslim teach my kids anything.

You don't seem to be aware how ridiculous that sounds.