 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM Akenaton, I really appreciate your feedback, and I realize that there is a degree of truth to your judgments of what I'm saying (and I do think it's very respectful that you are keeping to the 'content' of my message rather than attacking me personally) I do have some judgments about many of GFS's (as well as others) posts -----and if I felt he were open to hearing them I'd be quite willing to share them. At the same time I know nothing else about him. He might or might not have mental health issues. And I might or might not have mental health issues. Anybody here on mudcat could be on medication, and may have periods where they get into places or irrationality and have no control over this. And because I've had close relationships (professionally and personally) with people who struggle with such issues, I'm very sensitive to people using such issues as weapons for 'put-downs' of any sort. To me it's the equivalent of calling a gay person a 'faggot'. Or assigning negative racial stereotypes. Many people with mental health issues are brilliant, loving, and creative. That's why I'm so bristly about the medication and the 'see your psychiatrist' comments. They're not done with any spirit of concern, but as a way to enhance winning their argument. I judge those comments as 'abusive'. At the same time I don't believe that we should 'humour' comments from people who may have mental challenges just because we judge them as incapable of anything else. I agree....that would be disrespectful. My choice would be to ignore the comments if I believed that.......and at this point I have no reason to believe that with any of the mudcat posters. For me to put a label on a person as being 'abusive' wouldn't be possible, because I don't know their intent, what they have control over. But certainly would I would like to do (I don't know if I will because it takes an incredible amount of time) would be to go over all the posts (over 800) and point out the comments that meet my standards (mine....not anybody else's) of being clearly abusive. And so it doesn't become totally negative I'd also like to point out comments that I view as being respectful......even as they challenge what the other person as saying. I don't agree with people's comments that the expression of certain opinions are necessarily abusive. Even though I think many of those opinions, if put into practice, would be clearly dangerous. But I could be wrong. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say in my earlier post(s). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:50 PM As for GfinS, Larry... He ain't really insane... He ain't even psychotic... Personality disorder??? Yeah... And he ain't my client... He's just a a guy who talks and talks and talks about just how open minded he is but... ...is filled with hatred for Obama, filled with hatred of "liberals" (whatever they are), busts on Don, who BTW is transparent and has a long resume' of being one of the good guys, busts on me (who cares) and advocates Tea Party positions while saying he supports Dennis Kucinich??? In the words of Ralph Crampton, "A real pip"... ***grin*** Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about GfinS's problems... I'm just glad that I ain't got carry them around... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:28 PM I am not stupid Dave. If homosexual health is not to be debated...fair enough I will stick to the Mudcat rules. However. if we are debating how to stop the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, then all ideas should be put forward. How would YOU like to see this problem tackled?.....or are you another who just doesn't want to know? You say I am prejudiced, yet YOU have advanced NO views on cutting infection rates! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:16 PM Dave....see how many posts are in this thread? You want to close it? Why don't you just open something else, where you can be amongst your own kind.....folks who are never stupid, prejudiced...and who have never masturbated. There must be a thread somewhere for you. And thanks for giving me the "benefit of the doubt" earlier, I suppose that didn't apply to my "prejudice". I have never thought of you as being on my side Dave....I don't care about sides and your assistance is not required. If I wanted popularity I would not be posting on this site, but there are a lot of people here who advance views on homosexual health which are misleading or simply wrong. These threads sometimes run to 4 or 5 thousand posts so somebody must be interested? Never been poked in the eye Dave, but a few have tried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:11 PM This debate was about "respectful boundaries in debate"... Yes it is ake, and you seem to be too stupid to realise that you cross those "respectful boundaries" just by stating your view that homosexuals should undergo compulsory testing. How can we get that into your thick skull other than by kicking you in the virtual knackers? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM Larry....what you seem to be saying that its OK to think of GfS as "crazy", but not to say it.....to humour him, to tolerate his crazy ideas.......to be respectful to someone who has mental problems. By putting forward this line you reinforce the idea that there is something wrong with Sanity's reasoning. Sanity is far from crazy, he is an original thinker, enthusiastic and insightful....his posts contain many original and interesting ideas. He is not led by ideology nor constrained by political correctness. I think he deserves better from you. This debate was about "respectful boundaries in debate"...there are numerous examples in this thread of people breeching these boundaries, by being personally abusive to me and to Sanity, because they do not like the subject under discussion. You were the OP yet refuse to mention the abuse, or the abusers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM Oh. for fucks sake, give it a rest. I have been away for the weekend and the same old crap is pouring out. There are some complete wankers on this thread who would not know respectful boundaries if they hit them in their stupid collective nadgers. Yes. ake and GfS I am talking about you. If I did not say so specifically I suspect you are stupid enough to think I was on your side. Just go and fuck yourselves. Take your idiotic stupid religions and views on homosexuality with you and then go and disappear up your own arseholes. Sorry everyone else, There are some things I just cannot put up with. Stupidity, prejudice and Mudcat wankers are just three of them. Trouble is , they will think that I am in the wrong. All I can say about that is, I couldn't give a shit what they think. If I ever met them in real life they are amongst the people I would be quite happy to poke in the eye. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:34 PM And as far as I'm concerned, the jury can stay out. I have no problems, Akenaton, with you making (and even sharing on this thread) any judgments about me. We all have judgments. And yes, as I read various posts my head gets filled with judgments. I try not to take them too seriously, and instead, try to turn them into 'curiosities'. Sometimes I'm successful....sometimes not. But most importantly......I have to tell myself that they are just 'judgments' that probably reveal a little bit about the person I'm judging.......and a lot about myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:23 PM Sorry about that last comment about Larry, the jury is still out. Ian....you don't have the wit or humour to score points, just pack it in......go do something constructive as opposed to destructive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM Seems to me, good guy Larry is being a trifle disingenuous Sanity. "Damning with faint praise" comes to mind." Don.... I was brought up with livestock, my family reared large flocks of hens, geese, ducks, and a few sheep. Round where I live are many small farms, where cattle were bred for beef and milk. Clydesdale horses were used and bred before tractors were widely used. As children we knew all about animal procreation. Perhaps if you would stop trying to score points, your questions would be answered more often, and perhaps we could get on a it better? Seems to me you're not a bad sort of fella....you've just got into bad company. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM GFS. There is somebody with a youtube name of GuestfromSanity who has posted some rather nice videos of his music. Is that you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:05 PM ". . . no 'value judgements' in it...no name calling, no ill intent. . . ." You say that, GfinS, after making up an entirely fictional background for me, then judging my "moral code" on the basis of that? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:59 PM ......so what part of my post do or did you wish to take exception to?? ..a lot of 'ire' but 'where's the beef'???? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM And......can you still feel some respect for somebody whose mental health leads him/her into delusions? Can we find the 'boundary' between the delusion and the other aspects of that person's true essence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:52 PM OK, Don T. and Bobert. Let's assume that all your evidence provides strong support for GFS's insanity. So he has a serious mental health issue. Bobert, now assume that GFS is either a patient of yours, a family member, or even just an acquaintance. In your role as a mental health professional, would you not try to show such people respect.....and even if they attacked you or spat out words antithetical to social justice......would you attack him back? My guess is probably not. So why are you so focussed on disputing the words of this crazy guy? And what makes it so hard to empathize with him.....and how difficult it must be for him? When a crazy person feels like a 'threat', it's usually because we perceive it as a threat to our own sanity. But if we know for sure that the ideas that a mentally disturbed person puts out are truly delusions..........there really isn't a great deal of charge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket four hours later Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM Thought not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket par for the course Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM How to win friends and influence people eh? Rock on Goofus! Any more groups of people you wish to pontificate on? Any more members of Mudcat you wish to quack analyse? Have a go at getting into the mind of Akenaton if you want to challenge your abilities. Don't forget to take a torch. Afterwards you might think twice before siding with him. .. Or maybe not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:24 AM Okay, if we are going down psycho-babble lane, here's the real deal on GfinS... Lotta smoke and no fire... In other words, "Talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk"... Reminds me of the folks that John Lennon was singing about in "Working class hero"... "Classless and free but all fucking peasants as far as I can see"... Ya' see... Don and I - as well as others - who have been and continue to "activists" don't do this for ego or self... We do it out of love for our fellow man... That's a foreign concept to GfinS that he can't wrap his head around and therefore just talks and talks and talks about folks who are out there fighting for justice and fairness for all of us... This ain't about something wrong with Don or me... This is about something very wrong with GfinS... Hey, I'm no psychiatrist but 15 years as a social worker dealing with people with mental health issues I think has left me with some perspective of various disorders... Hey, I really don't give a rat's ass about GfinS's problems until it becomes an attack on me or Don or any of the other folks who are fighting the good fight for social justice out here in the real world... I'll just leave it at that... For now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:31 AM ""Very occasionally when under extreme stress, as in being herded or sent to market some animals may go through the action of "mounting" one another, getting into the position for mating, but I have never known penetrative mating to take place. This behaviour seems to be triggered by anxiety."" I hadn't realised that your obsession with the sexual activities of others included a 24/7 watch on herds of cattle. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:27 AM ""and it bugs the fuck out of you, and you get nasty, when someone comes along, pops your bubble, especially, if that bubble includes the group around you, and the created consensus."" Especially when that somebody bases his whole attack on a lie he has constructed to support his viciousness, then goes on to claim knowledge of God help anybody who receives therapy from this Walter Mitty clown! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:22 AM ""'Morals' on the other hand, are generally 'rules' that through observation through decades, even centuries, are 'guides' for the maintenance of, either practical or healthy living, often coupled the premise of not causing harm, to the basic structure, of you, or the community, at large, and avoiding unpleasant, or damaging consequences...either Spiritual, mental, physical, emotional or in societal living, damaging your survival in those areas."" Why not improve your featherweight grasp of human interaction and do some research. Start with the history of the Ancient Greeks, particularly Sparta. You might just improve the miniscule possibility that you know what you are talking about. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:17 AM ""I don't know whether any of you have a mental health diagnosis or are on medication. But I do know that if you are, it's nothing to be ashamed of. So please stop the medication jokes."" Don't you think that anybody posting the following is either too in love with himself for rational thought, or too delusional to have the slightest credibility? ""To be honest with ya', six days after my heart surgery, the cardiologist told me that my recovery has been 'nothing short of miraculous', AND he had heard my music. He told me that he thought there was an 'amazing amount of healing' in it. So after my release, my daughter and son-in-law, swung by our place, picked up my truck and loaded a LOT of my musical equipment into it, and took it to their house, where I also stayed during the 31/2 months of healing....in which, without a bill to pay, a decision to make, a form to fill out, a meal to cook, nor an explanation to make, or a post to type, I focused on what he had said, dialed in to the finest line I could zero in on, and composed several pieces. Upon my five week follow-up appointment with the same doctor, at the hospital, I brought him a stack of CDs, and GAVE (free)them to him, and other medical staff there to use, and to give away, for free to any other medical facility, who they felt could make use of them. As of 9 months ago, it was being used in 5 major hospitals in 4 states, and numerous therapy centers."" I ask you Larry, has this guy got a God complex or what? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM ""Maybe other people should be 'allowed' to think for themselves, and not limited by a political agenda, which frankly may be set into law by people dumber than a brain-dead ideologue, with a need to feel important!!!!"" Except of course for those whom you despise! You would have been a sensation in 1936 - 1945 Germany. It is gays themselves who asked for the right to marry in the first place, and received support because they deserved it, but that doesn't fit with your preferred distortion, so you try in your feeble stupid way to blacken the supporters, which doesn't alter the facts one bit. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:55 AM Somebody buy him a David Attenborough set of BBC DVDs, I can't be arsed to even begin to help him with his embarrassment with that latest gem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:42 AM Homosexuality amongst "animals" is too ridiculous to even discuss in this context. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with rearing livestock will understand why. Animals mate by instinct, they are also given natural signals at the appropriate times by the appropriate gender. Very occasionally when under extreme stress, as in being herded or sent to market some animals may go through the action of "mounting" one another, getting into the position for mating, but I have never known penetrative mating to take place. This behaviour seems to be triggered by anxiety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket laughing Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM Pro Bono is a little expensive for Goofus's analysis........ It makes wonderful subject matter in its own right though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:40 AM Yep. There are no 'value judgements' in it...no name calling, no ill intent. Just an analysis from 'exchanging' with him for about 41/2 years or so, and clocking the patterns of behavior. ..and to show that it was done in good faith...it was even 'pro bono'!!! What else could a guy want??? Regards Larry, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:32 AM Interesting analysis, guest from sanity. Therapists do often formulate hypotheses about their clients, and then they give the client the 'space' to discover for themselves what might be going on. Sometimes they share their hypothesis with the client, sometimes they don't. But to think we know something about someone for certain is a key to frustration......because we human beings are so much more complex. So if you were expressing yourself 'objectively and respectfully', you'd explore with the person whether or not they agree with your hypothesis. Our assessments of others always tell more about us then they do about the client. Even I, as a trained therapist, know that my assessments are never accurate....they only provide a base for further exploration (with the client). And they say a lot more about me then they do about the other person. So looking back on what you just wrote, GFS, do you really think that its' objective and respectful? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:43 AM Don Firth: "Some humans, for some reasons, do, and then want to force their moral code and behavior patterns on others." Coming from you, I can see where you may think that...but mistakenly, AGAIN. As in most creatures in the animal world, there is a mechanism called 'pair bonding' for the rearing of the offspring. The higher the intelligence level of the animal, the longer the 'pair bonding'. In some animals the offspring spend more time with their mothers, till the offspring can fend for its own. As for man, the length of the cycle that a child spends, before maturity, is the longest in proportion, than any other creature in the 'animal' world. This is because, in humans, the longest part of development, is the brain, emotions, mental, conceptual etc etc. for the tools of survival..not just against the elements, but in society.but because man is very societal, and that development is part of the survival skills needed, to survive in a community of other like beings. Basically, with that, you can say is the longer the 'pair bonding' for the rearing of the offspring, the higher development of that particular specie. 'Morals' on the other hand, are generally 'rules' that through observation through decades, even centuries, are 'guides' for the maintenance of, either practical or healthy living, often coupled the premise of not causing harm, to the basic structure, of you, or the community, at large, and avoiding unpleasant, or damaging consequences...either Spiritual, mental, physical, emotional or in societal living, damaging your survival in those areas. With that in mind, Don, and with your 'history', it is easy to understand how you make up your 'moral code' as you go along in life, and use rationalizations to avoid dealing with the consequences. It also explains your need to see yourself as a 'political activist', because your ability to rationalize, has convinced yourself that you are a bit more persuasive than you are, other than within yourself.. and in persuasion, you gather people around you, that you can share a consensus with, and that consensus becomes your relative reality....and it bugs the fuck out of you, and you get nasty, when someone comes along, pops your bubble, especially, if that bubble includes the group around you, and the created consensus. ..and that was very objectively, and respectfully said. If you have a therapist, he/she, would agree..... ........though you still might not like it. .....then again, you might. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 19 Aug 13 - 10:52 PM Haven't heard from you for awhile, Bobert. Nice to know you're still with us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:55 PM Get back on your meds, Larry... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:45 PM Animals don't take that much interest in who mates with whom. Some humans, for some reasons, do, and then want to force their moral code and behavior patterns on others. One group of people trying to arbitrarily force their moral code on another group of people is what gets Liberals acting. I'm afraid GfS has the cart before the horse, here. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 19 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM I just want to comment on the disrespect I'm picking up from the comments directed at GFS re his needing to be on medication. It's not so much that I'm concerned about the banter that is being directed at each other. That's all part of the process. But I know how singled out many people with mental health concerns feel.....and many of them refuse needed medication because of the stigmatization that goes with it. I don't know whether any of you have a mental health diagnosis or are on medication. But I do know that if you are, it's nothing to be ashamed of. So please stop the medication jokes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:54 PM You would have made a great "daftie" Ian.....if you ever learned a little sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket swearing again so sorry about that Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:38 PM Akenaton 03.41PM Fuck me gently..... Did anyone in your hard times village contribute by making decent soufflés or advising on soft furnishings? I don't know about your fantasy issue, but I know what I would like to see silenced. It would be wonderful if people could go about their business without feeling judged or hated by people they have never had the displeasure to meet yet. Hey Goofus! Do your cures cost lots of money or have they gone on the generic list yet? My mate says he needs curing because his lifestyle makes his eyes water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:22 PM Don T: "There is homosexual activity throughout the animal kingdom, but only human beings target and abuse homosexuals." ...and the animals formed an aggressively 'liberal' political stance behind it as well???...Oh BTW, homosexual activity in the animal kingdom...is that the same thing we humans define as 'sexual orientation'???....or is 'sexual orientation' synonymous with 'political persuasion'? The problem with you guys, is that you must 'think'(?) that everyone's mind is as weak and feeble as yours...and other people DON'T have the ability to change their minds, their 'lifestyles', political beliefs, or preferences in their favorite color! You must think that people are not capable of re-directing their lives, so you want to set policies based on the weakest points of view. Maybe other people should be 'allowed' to think for themselves, and not limited by a political agenda, which frankly may be set into law by people dumber than a brain-dead ideologue, with a need to feel important!!!!...and seek help, if they so feel that they need help, to make that change. The other Don, is changing his tune again, depending on how he fears that others, who identify themselves as being 'liberal' perceive him!...SURE!!!! he isn't against people getting counseling to get out of homosexuality...NOW that is....but that's a different tune that he is whistling now! Remember his rants about it being 'genetic' and therefore couldn't and shouldn't be changed because of counseling????????...Besides, counseling isn't the changing factor..what is, is the person who has decided to seek counseling, because HE/SHE WANTS help in making the change!! To say that it is 'genetic' and therefore counseling is a farce by charlatans(as previously argued, by you two), is in effect, denying that homosexuals CAN change their 'orientation' (read: persuasion by habit)...and therefore denying them care!!!!!!!!!..and don't go trying to double-talk yourselves out of this one. Let me give you two(and others) a subtle hint....You're consummately wrong!...and replaced a ''political notion' over compassion and common sense!..So, in light of that, fuck your political notions and the horse it rode in on!!!!!....Speaking of which, remember how Californians voted for the Prop 8 marriage ban?..and how critics said back then, myself included, saying what next?..polygamy? or age discrimination?..or animals?...and the 'so-called liberal' nitwits thought that was so silly and stupid?..Remember that?...Well speaking of fucking the horse you rode in on, and the 'animal kingdom'...check this out.. ..or this ..and if you think that was stupid, so did most Californians, when they voted against two people of the same sex marrying. For What It's Worth... GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 19 Aug 13 - 03:41 PM Suzy....I was vey interested in your remarks regarding primitive societies and how inclusive they seemed to be. In my very young days here in rural Scotland most of the farms had a "daftie".....a person who today would be institutionalised or medicated into vegetation. The "dafties" became part of the "ferm touns", ran errands, helped at simple tasks, entertained the children(some were very musical), a lived a useful and quite fulfilling lives....they had a purpose. We has an inclusive society because life was hard...everyone had to contribute according to their means. Even we children were taught the value of self-sufficiency. Looking a mental health today, I wonder if we have really progressed at all |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:26 PM You are wrong Don. 70% of all new cases of Syphilis in the UK were amongst male homosexuals.....HPA latest statistics. This converts to a huge over representation of male homosexuals affected. Infection rates in other STD's and Hepatitis are also very many times higher for male homosexuals. The reason I care?.......Shouldn't everyone care? I maintain that there is something intrinsic to male homosexual behaviour which causes these over-representations, no one in all the threads on the subject has ever come up with an alternative reason which holds water......most people, even those involved with Health services want any discussion of the problem.....SILENCED. ON these pages you can see that tactic in action |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:24 PM ""calling other members "pieces of filth"......"he is fucking evil", do you call that liberal behaviour?"" Neither liberal nor illiberal, simply observation based comment upon the outpourings of those whose minds are closed to any concept of "live and let live". And since you don't sleep with other men, why does the subject arouse such fervour. You don't have the same concern for those who contract Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia or any other STD, which are rife among heterosexuals. The difference is obvious. Straight as opposed to Gay! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM ""As I posted in another thread, a while back, is that the AIDS virus was developed at Fort Kendrick, and 'tested' and targeted both in Africa AND the Homosexual communities. To say that those figures aren't higher, just to gain 'political' points is nothing short of sheer stupidity, would you also say?"" The usual incoherent blether from the Walter Mitty clone who is so far up his own arse as to actually expect the world at large to believe that cardiologists endorse the healing powers of his specific "musical"(?) output. And he talks about others' delusions? ""'Will to survive, and Reproduce'!..Even Darwinism would agree to that!! ..and being as homosexuality isn't about the latter, 'Reproducing', it is looked upon by the greater of societies, as being a form of 'decadence' OR a form of 'Decay' from the 'Will to survive, and Reproduce'..which all living beings have in common...it IS about sex, it is a choice or a choice made by 'resignation', (and any educated psychologist can enumerate the factors that go into that 'resignation'!"" There is homosexual activity throughout the animal kingdom, but only human beings target and abuse homosexuals. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket giggling Date: 19 Aug 13 - 11:56 AM My dear Goofus.. Fuck with you? I'm not even on the same planet as you. Anyway, if I were to, it might fuck some sense into you. There again, you don't seem to be the only one seeing gay as an illness. You just don't stand out any more, and that must have an awful effect your ego. After all, we seem to have people openly comparing being gay with having mental health issues. I used to like fat chicks, as the young me referred to them as, so whether that is illness or preference? Buggered if I know.. Congratulations Goofus and Cleopatra's pet rodent. There used to be be one in every village, but you seem to be heading up a growing commune of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM Guest, I was able to download three of your songs. Unfortunately, I could not get Joy because it's over 20 minutes. Exploit, yes, absolutely. Let's look at a different minority for a change- the group referred to as "mentally ill" although I prefer the old term "mad" as it is more descriptive than evaluative or judgmental. There once was a time, before the "Age of Reason" that such persons were integrated in society and only those prone to violent acts were confined. After the sea change in attitude toward these individuals, for 400 years, a lifetime of confinement and mistreatment was a given and deemed appropriate. When society changed its mind again more recently, the cultural provisions (such as the Feast of Fools) had been long abandoned and forgotten. Pity. Can you imagine a celebration in honor of madness? Now of course we view madness entirely in the negative. No humor, just grave expressions, an assumption that they have nothing to offer us and what will WE do with "those" people, eh? In the beginning, psychiatrists were called "alienists"- think about that! Hierarchal societies are full of "others." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM "his propagation of hate, suggestions of registering gay people, forcing testing and contact tracing, all for no reason at all, contravene the law." Leaving aside the "hate" Ian.....you just can't help yourself I suppose,..... do you really think that the rates of STD infection in male homosexuals are "no reason at all?" Your "liberal" answer to the problem has failed miserably. If the epidemic is to be curtailed something more radical needs to be attempted, even if that upsets your "sensibilities". You are unimportant in this context. Although death rates are falling in association with aids cases, this is purely due to increased testing and contact tracing allowing the disease to be caught early. Contraction of the disease still means a shortened lifetime of ill health and the unknown effects of huge doses of antivirals; plus the chance of infecting others if un-diagnosed Don says, "What has been said is that those of same-sex orientation who do not want counseling should not be forced or intimidated into undergoing treatment." What has also been said, not by Don,.... is that anyone who says that homosexuality can be "cured" by therapy, is a vile bigoted monster, who should not be allowed a voice in civilised society.(guess who). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:58 AM Musket: "To Goofus. I am a liberal" Not particularly.....more like a guy who likes to fuck with people for the fun of it. hey....you brought it up. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket between courses Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:18 AM I'm the one who said Akenaton is fucking evil, for what it is worth. Unlike him, I stick to the views he types under that name whilst he takes every opportunity to remind everybody of the name of the person behind the Musket monicker. One clever thing about people who spout evil views is that generally they don't have courage of their own conviction whilst trying to spread their shit as liberally as they can. Which of course brings us to the word "liberal." As we have people both sides of the pond, it may be interesting to notice the different interpretations of the word. To Goofus. I am a liberal. To Akenaton. I am not a liberal. To everybody else. The two statements above are not contradictory. My main point regarding respectable boundaries in reply to the op on this thread is that respectability goes further than strong reaction, it starts with boundaries of obscene views, however wrapped up in polite terms and requests for reasonable reaction to unreasonable stance. I have no idea about The USA in general and presumably state law differs, but Akenaton and I are bound by hate laws and whilst I see the criminal laws as overkill, his propagation of hate, suggestions of registering gay people, forcing testing and contact tracing, all for no reason at all, contravene the law. If I am such a liberal as he says, I would despise such laws but they do have the advantage of allowing people to go about their business without being stigmatised, without people being urged to see them as different. Sadly, those of us working in one way or another in health care see such odious views being spilled into our world to try unsuccessfully to justify hate. It doesn't wash. Although I am about to. I feel better washing after explaining my utter contempt for bigotry. Morning all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Ebbie Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM "Knowledge in the hands of a mean, unscrupulous scoundrel is not such a good thing, and it would be unethical of me to allow, or inform such a person with the intent to alter a system, for his self aggrandizement with those tools." If the shoe... and all that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:21 AM In actuality, Larry, no one has said that anyone who wants counseling should be denied it. What has been said is that those of same-sex orientation who do not want counseling should not be forced or intimidated into undergoing treatment. I am personally acquainted with a middle-aged woman, who was (IS) a lesbian who, when she was younger, was forced by her family, and their church, to undergo "therapy," namely, aversion therapy, to "cure" her lesbianism. This woman became a psychological basket case. But she IS celibate, and that's all her family apparently cares about. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Larry The Radio Guy Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM "What I DID say, is IF a person WANTS counseling, that he shouldn't be denied, because of a political stance, by those who would deny it, based on the 'genetic myth'." Absolutely. Totally agree. And it's up to the person seeking counselling to decide what it is they most want to accomplish within the counselling (I always focus on short-term objectives that will lead them closer to a longer term goal), and to explore with them the best ways to achieve it. And to also explore how working on some of those objectives might change the goal. Our goals in live do change as we evolve. (Sorry....I'm using that word again). But I guess I haven't read the posts closely enough, as I never realized that anybody was saying that gay people should be denied counselling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:36 PM Suzy, the Wonderful Sock Puppet: "The question becomes what do WE do with this or that person or "those" people. It's assumed that we just can't allow people to be who they are. Control, control, control. Dominance." You left out 'Exploit'. Warmest Regards, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:22 PM I hope that you're all done with your over reactions, and once again, stuffing words in my mouth that I never said. Nobody said anything about 'changing ones sexual orientation', what ever the hell that is. What I DID say, is IF a person WANTS counseling, that he shouldn't be denied, because of a political stance, by those who would deny it, based on the 'genetic myth'. That is quite a bit different than launching a crusade, to 'cure' the world of its ills, now isn't it? ....Isn't it??? Rather than 'banning a topic' I think enough has already been said about this over 4 years to fill volumes. Just go back, check the old threads, and research both sides of the discussion. Note who distorts what..while you're at it! What really is pathetic, is that Akenaton and I have been ruthlessly accused of all sorts of nonsense, just because we have different takes on it, and we're both accurate...and are not letting a political notion and agenda interfere with simple truths. You may not agree, and that's your(generically) prerogative. What is another telling product of brain-lock, is that you (generically)are so hell-bent politically, locked into a bad argument, you failed to even ask me, what Constitutional provision WOULD have justified your position, and won in the Supreme Court....But..ya' fucked up....and I ain't a tellin'!...and the reason is, is that you've, Don at the lead, has mishandled the little bit of knowledge that he had, and was willing to cause a lot of damage to shove through his point of view. Had this 'debate' taken a different tone much earlier, he would have been a national political star for his 'cause' armed with what I could have shared with him.....but not now..too late!..WAY too late. Knowledge in the hands of a mean, unscrupulous scoundrel is not such a good thing, and it would be unethical of me to allow, or inform such a person with the intent to alter a system, for his self aggrandizement with those tools. It's better left to yet be figured out...without MY help! So, once again, the posse returns to town empty handed, convincing no one that their political notions can be turned into fact. Rest well..tomorrow you may ride again. GfS P.S. Ironic that I mentioned someone putting Larry up to this...and guess who shows up instantly to make sure I didn't mean him!!! OH!!!.. SURE....I believe you.......(rolls eyes)...whatever you say... |
