The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old April 6th, 2013, 08:52 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Viruses and bacteria are not the same thing. Bacteria are life forms pretty similar to human beings when it comes down to their fundamental makeup and processes. Viruses are basically a protein shell with RNA and the most trippy-ass thing I learned so far - reverse transcriptases, which are enzymes that can convert RNA into DNA. This is how viruses infect - by converting their RNA genetic material to DNA, the cell ends up converting the inserted DNA into proteins, reproducing the virus so virulently until the cell dies and the virus spreads. I don't know this for sure and the information is out there, but I'll venture a guess that synthetic virus in a vaccine has had something done to its reverse transcriptase so it can't actually infect a cell.

You can't kill viruses because they don't breath. Bacteria, on the other hand do breathe, and are use sugars, fats and oxygen as energy just like we do. From what I read, antibodies and mercury used in such a role play the same function and shut down the same processes. I'm confused because if they do the same thing the same way then why not used the one that /doesn't/ cause permanent brain damage?

I also just learned that mercury is banned for most vaccines in Western Countries. And they are definitely banned for child vaccines. Because mercury causes brain damage. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #27    
Old April 6th, 2013, 08:58 PM
Echidna's Avatar
Echidna
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Vaniville Town
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Viruses and bacteria are not the same thing. Bacteria are life forms pretty similar to human beings when it comes down to their fundamental makeup and processes. Viruses are basically a protein shell with RNA and the most trippy-ass thing I learned so far - reverse transcriptases, which are enzymes that can convert RNA into DNA. This is how viruses infect - by converting their RNA genetic material to DNA, the cell ends up converting the inserted DNA into proteins, reproducing the virus so virulently until the cell dies and the virus spreads. I don't know this for sure and the information is out there, but I'll venture a guess that synthetic virus in a vaccine has had something done to its reverse transcriptase so it can't actually infect a cell.

You can't kill viruses because they don't breath. Bacteria, on the other hand do breathe, and are use sugars, fats and oxygen as energy just like we do. From what I read, antibodies and mercury used in such a role play the same function and shut down the same processes. I'm confused because if they do the same thing the same way then why not used the one that /doesn't/ cause permanent brain damage?

I also just learned that mercury is banned for most vaccines in Western Countries. And they are definitely banned for child vaccines. Because mercury causes brain damage. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
I stand corrected o_o
Also, a quick question: We've established that both antibiotics and mercury can kill bacteria, but can mercury eliminate viruses seeing how they can't be "killed" per se?
__________________






Reply With Quote
  #28    
Old April 6th, 2013, 09:16 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEDRO12 View Post
I stand corrected o_o
Also, a quick question: We've established that both antibiotics and mercury can kill bacteria, but can mercury eliminate viruses seeing how they can't be "killed" per se?
They're not "killed" because they were never alive. They never metabolised - broke down compounds to harness their chemical energy - like bacteria, humans, and other organisms do. They are "inactivated", by deactivating certain proteins that allow a virus to exploit a cell's machinery. So when they're deprived of this function, they're basically genetic material floating around in protein containers that our immune systems can tag and bag, literally.

Based on what I've read and learned, I do not believe that mercury does anything to the virus - the virus prep is done long before, and the mercury is to prevent you from getting injected with a petri dish, basically. One of the ways to "kill" or "inactivate" viruses would be to heat them, because proteins denature under heat, an example of this being the albumin hardening in a cooked egg. But then again, some viruses might be able to survive, and continue reproducing so the balance is justifying the cost between 99.9999% vs 99.99999% effectiveness.

I believe containing a virus infection is a battle of rates. An unharmed virus will continue reproducing at a speed that the immune system cannot contain. A sufficiently deactivated virus - maybe you treat it with heat and present it in a super-small dose - will still reproduce, but would reproduce at a rate your immune system can contain. In fact, I suppose it would even be possible to have an equilibrium between the rate of the virus population increasing and the rate of your immune system to kill the virus (I don't know how this works - maybe hardkilling by using some enzyme to rip protein and RNA of the virus apart) would negate each other, leading the population of virus in your body to remain constant and giving your body a copy of the virus for the rest of its life, thereby giving you immunity.

Of course, virus doses must be at a much lower concentration than one that can establish an equilibrium, first of all because viruses mutate and so your immunity wouldn't last long anyways, and more importantly no two people's immune system are alike and what one person could recover from the other person will die. You can think of this concept like homework. Your teacher can be a good teacher and give you assignments a bit at a time, and you will learn more and grow. Or he can be an ass and give you a lot at once, and then you will die. Some people can deal with lots of homework, other people not so much. So we can be relieved at the miniscule amount of virus that are actually contained in a dose of vaccine.

Last edited by Kanzler; April 6th, 2013 at 09:54 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #29    
Old April 7th, 2013, 05:33 AM
Jay0173's Avatar
Jay0173
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay0173
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
Its far fetched but doesn't mean it is "crazy" Come on how can two guys together be natural? putting it in the poop shoot is natural?
Hate to tell you, but the number of gays who engage in anal sex is almost the same as the percentage of straight couples who do the same, that being around 37%. My boyfriend and I are among that percentage. And to us, it is VERY natural. Did you know that the male G spot (the most sensitive erogenous zone in the human body) can be stimulated through the anus, and somewhat by massaging the perineum? For me, the idea of engaging in any form of sex with a female disgusting and I want to have no part of it. What is natural for you, may not be natural for others.

Human beings also are not the only species on this planet that engages in sex with same-sex partners. Over 1500 species have been noted to do the same. And the only reason their numbers are dwindling is because of the human race's interference with their natural habitat, not because of who they have sex with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
Vaccines are they natural? No they are man made.. Really thats how it was meant to be?
Vaccines, by and large, contain natural elements, so in that sense, yes, they are natural. What makes them effective for the prevention of diseases in humans, is how we've learned to combine these natural elements together to do the task required of them. Much the same as how we combine herbs and spices and oils to create dressings for our salads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
.. Man and woman are a fit because they can reproduce keep the population growing.
Homosexuality also plays a very important role in contributing to the growth of a family. You may not think so, but it is true. It is a completely natural sexual orientation that serves a vital role in the continuation of the human species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
I am not denying that the same sex cant love each other, father n son, brother n brother, but its not homosexuality that is a disease
Glad to hear you don't think that homosexuality was a sickness. I was beginning to wonder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
its sex... Sex is a problem, it can be an addiction, cause people to do some crazy things, rape for instance(not saying all rapist are sex addicts), sex is out of control in todays world, it went from private between two people to world news headlines.
Sex, like almost anything, can become quite the powerful addiction. Why? Because sex is pleasurable. There is one law of humanity, and that is that humans will do what pleases them most. People can get addicted to sex, drugs, alcohol, and also drinking pop, playing video games, and participating in sports. Almost anything we do that causes us pleasure can be addictive. The human race is one of the few species on Earth that engages in sex primarily for pleasure rather than for procreation (although procreation does occur, sometimes planned and sometimes not). Sex is also a vital part of our health and well being. The chemicals that are released into our systems while having sex actually helps to improve our immune systems, and even helps improve our state of mind. It works very much in the same way that laughter does, which also has some good health benefits.

Instead of thinking that sex is the problem, which it's not, you should be concerned more with people who use sex as a means of exerting power over someone. That is where the problem lies. Two people who care about each other very much and who have sex are not the problem. In fact, they're the ones who are helping society the most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
All I'm saying if humanity was on the brink of extinction you wouldn't want the last few guys alive to be gay, and vice versa. Even if they could get it to work it wouldn't be very successful. It aint natural, and It could be very much possible that vaccines could be the cause..

not saying it is, just saying anything is possible.
Yeah, and it's possible the Earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is the centre of the whole universe. Only it's not. And your points here demonstrate your lack of knowledge of what is and what isn't natural.

I am gay. So is my boyfriend. We knew we were gay from a very young age. It was not something we chose. The only choice for us was in deciding whether to accept what we felt. We chose to accept it, and we chose to accept that we loved each other, and the rest... well, that's led us to 4 very happy, fulfilling years together. Us being who we are is as natural as you being who you are. You cannot deny what comes naturally to me any more than I could deny what comes naturally to you. I would celebrate you for who you are, whereas you would denigrate us and consider us "damaged goods."
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

Last edited by Jay0173; April 7th, 2013 at 05:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30    
Old April 7th, 2013, 06:33 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
“Each vaccination produces homosexuality, because it prevents the formation of one’s personality.”

So... just about everyone in the modern world is gay then?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31    
Old April 7th, 2013, 08:48 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040
Homosexuality also plays a very important role in contributing to the growth of a family. You may not think so, but it is true. It is a completely natural sexual orientation that serves a vital role in the continuation of the human species.
I wouldn't make that claim myself. And you didn't give shred of evidence of why it would be true. My doubt of a "vital role" makes "completely natural" sound misleading. Homosexuals are a very small minority so even if their role us important it wouldn't be universal.



Posted from Pokecommunity.com App for Android
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #32    
Old April 7th, 2013, 10:14 AM
Jay0173's Avatar
Jay0173
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay0173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
I wouldn't make that claim myself. And you didn't give shred of evidence of why it would be true. My doubt of a "vital role" makes "completely natural" sound misleading. Homosexuals are a very small minority so even if their role us important it wouldn't be universal.



Posted from Pokecommunity.com App for Android
The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.

E.O. Wilson: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

The theory is controversial, but to date, there has been no counter-theory made to refute the conclusions of E.O. Wilson. At least none that I'm aware of. I've read about theories that suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, and yet, these theories don't hold much water, as if that were true, homosexuality in humans would have disappeared a long time ago. Those traits would not have been passed on.

I read an article in the Toronto Star, not too long ago, that referred to this same theory, and it seemed apparent to me, that it is a theory that has begun to gain wider acceptance. It's also a theory I happen to believe is pretty close to the truth of what happens. Where I disagree, however, is that the theory should not be limited to homosexuals at all, but instead should be expanded to all relatives within a family.

So, when I say the existence of people who are gay have played a vital role, I don't exaggerate. I think we do play a very important role in helping our families to grow. But I don't believe we are the only ones. Like with any other group, it's a collective effort. Everyone within the family would like to see the family grow. It just so happens that gay men and women play a unique role in making that happen.
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
  #33    
Old April 7th, 2013, 10:39 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.

E.O. Wilson: Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

The theory is controversial, but to date, there has been no counter-theory made to refute the conclusions of E.O. Wilson. At least none that I'm aware of. I've read about theories that suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, and yet, these theories don't hold much water, as if that were true, homosexuality in humans would have disappeared a long time ago. Those traits would not have been passed on.

I read an article in the Toronto Star, not too long ago, that referred to this same theory, and it seemed apparent to me, that it is a theory that has begun to gain wider acceptance. It's also a theory I happen to believe is pretty close to the truth of what happens. Where I disagree, however, is that the theory should not be limited to homosexuals at all, but instead should be expanded to all relatives within a family.

So, when I say the existence of people who are gay have played a vital role, I don't exaggerate. I think we do play a very important role in helping our families to grow. But I don't believe we are the only ones. Like with any other group, it's a collective effort. Everyone within the family would like to see the family grow. It just so happens that gay men and women play a unique role in making that happen.
Ahh yes. I'm a bit familiar with this theory, but I'm not sure whether to interpret it from a pro-gay perspective or an evolutionary biology perspective. From reading his wiki page and some newspaper articles he believes in the idea both morally and scientifically. As for me, the evolutionary biology perspective is really intriguing because you would expect the homosexual gene(s) to die out due to it being evolutionarily fatal.

Scientifically, the theory is valid or else homosexuals would not exist XD There are more homosexuals than background mutation would suggest (essentially zero). That I agree with. I think the theory is basically that since homosexuals do not have children, they can pool all their resources into their nearest relations, whereas if that person was a heterosexual, they will likely have their own children and not pool resources. So imagine two scenarios. In the first one both of you children are heterosexual. They go on to have grandchildren who receive a share of resources provided to them by parents. In the second, one of your children is homosexual. You only get one set of grandchildren, but with double the resources. So the homosexual gene, provided it is unexpressed in the grandchildren has a 200% more resources and consequently better chance of survival in this instance.

While I agree to that scientifically, I don't know how applicable it is in general terms. It would be nice to have a gay uncle or aunt as a friendly, surrogate parent, but my personal experience is that of an immigrant who only has my nuclear family as kin here. So that's why it's more difficult for me to perceive the utility of homosexuals as force multipliers XD. But I still have to disagree because families work differently in the United States. While this might work in more communitarian cultures like China or India or Latin America where people interact regularly with extended families, North American culture tends to focus on the nuclear or single-parent families. What this does mean is that conservative, community-oriented cultures - for example that of the deep south, would benefit more from homosexuality than the liberal, individually-oriented culture of the North + Urban population XD.

Jokes and intrigue aside, homosexuals are special in that they don't have children of their own to spend resources on. However, I perceive that most white American families don't have three generations in the same household or in regular contact so this point is rather irrelevant in today's society. But even then I'll say that Wilson's theory was to explain how homosexuality was an adaptable trait with respect to survival and biology, and not whether or not it is effective in modern society. So to conclude, yes in principle, not-so-sure to whether it can be applied today.
Reply With Quote
  #34    
Old April 7th, 2013, 10:44 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
The most widely recognized evolutionary theory of homosexuality is that of E. O. Wilson and is based on the concept of kin-selection (i.e., a sociobiological explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviors). This theory holds that during the course of human evolution homosexual individuals may have helped family members, through direct or indirect provision of resources, to reproduce more successfully than they would have otherwise. Thus, genes for homosexual behavior would have been propagated indirectly through relatives.
I don't follow. What resources? Like... lodging? Money?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35    
Old April 7th, 2013, 10:49 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Yeah basically XD. I think it would make a lot more sense if we were all cavemen. But emotional support could be relevant today.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #36    
Old April 7th, 2013, 10:52 AM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Yeah basically XD
Ah. Wouldn't that apply to everyone though? Everybody helps everybody out. o.o
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37    
Old April 7th, 2013, 11:11 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Homosexuals have no children of their own, so all resources that they expend altruistically is directed to the children of their heterosexual kin, where heterosexual parents look after their kids first. But yeah, it's not so clear-cut nowadays, a very ugg-ugg no share food kind of thing.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #38    
Old April 7th, 2013, 11:24 AM
Jay0173's Avatar
Jay0173
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay0173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Ahh yes. I'm a bit familiar with this theory, but I'm not sure whether to interpret it from a pro-gay perspective or an evolutionary biology perspective. From reading his wiki page and some newspaper articles he believes in the idea both morally and scientifically. As for me, the evolutionary biology perspective is really intriguing because you would expect the homosexual gene(s) to die out due to it being evolutionarily fatal.

Scientifically, the theory is valid or else homosexuals would not exist XD There are more homosexuals than background mutation would suggest (essentially zero). That I agree with. I think the theory is basically that since homosexuals do not have children, they can pool all their resources into their nearest relations, whereas if that person was a heterosexual, they will likely have their own children and not pool resources. So imagine two scenarios. In the first one both of you children are heterosexual. They go on to have grandchildren who receive a share of resources provided to them by parents. In the second, one of your children is homosexual. You only get one set of grandchildren, but with double the resources. So the homosexual gene, provided it is unexpressed in the grandchildren has a 200% more resources and consequently better chance of survival in this instance.
This is why, biologically, I do not believe that gene(s) alone determines a person's sexual orientation. I think a large part of it would be environmental factors within the womb. If it was solely genes that determines the sexual orientation of a person, you're right, the trait most likely would have disappeared ages ago. But it's still with us, so clearly, something else is influencing a person's sexual orientation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
While I agree to that scientifically, I don't know how applicable it is in general terms. It would be nice to have a gay uncle or aunt as a friendly, surrogate parent, but my personal experience is that of an immigrant who only has my nuclear family as kin here. So that's why it's more difficult for me to perceive the utility of homosexuals as force multipliers XD.
Each of us has our own unique experiences. My uncle is gay, but I've never met him, or his husband. Even though occasionally I see him on TV as he's The Globe and Mail's Chief political writer (John Ibbitson) and is interviewed regularly when something of interest occurs in Canadian Politics. It's funny, I've never met him, and yet he and I both share an interest in writing. We're both published authors, as is my mother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
But I still have to disagree because families work differently in the United States
You mean they actually work? I was always under the impression (and some of my American friends have even hinted that this was true) that parents in the U.S. consider their children property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
While this might work in more communitarian cultures like China or India or Latin America where people interact regularly with extended families, North American culture tends to focus on the nuclear or single-parent families.
Hmm, my own family encourages interaction with the broader family rather than just the nuclear family. Consequentially, my adoptive parents encouraged me to find out more about my biological parents, and when we did connect (some 33 years after my birth) I ended up with a much larger family. I now have two mothers and two fathers, both sets that I call mom and dad and consider my parents. I also discovered that I had two younger brothers and a sister, so you can imagine how my family has grown beyond just the basic nuclear family.

My adoptive parents are of French and Norwegian decent, while my biological parents are of English decent. I used to joke with my friends in school that I didn't know which I way I was going some times because my father is French, my mother is Norwegian, and I have an Irish last name.

My adoptive parents even encouraged me to consider their good friends as extensions of our family, so whenever I met one of their friends, either when we went to visit or we were visited by them, I had a constantly ended up with more aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces. I'm pretty sure I haven't met all of them even to this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Jokes and intrigue aside, homosexuals are special in that they don't have children of their own to spend resources on.
A lot do, though, either through surrogacy or from a previous relationship with someone of the opposite sex. And you know, if my boyfriend could get me pregnant, I would be very happy to have his child. Ah well, the trying is fun anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
However, I perceive that most white American families don't have three generations in the same household or in regular contact so this point is rather irrelevant in today's society. But even then I'll say that Wilson's theory was to explain how homosexuality was an adaptable trait with respect to survival and biology, and not whether or not it is effective in modern society. So to conclude, yes in principle, not-so-sure to whether it can be applied today.
Who knows. It really depends on the family. There are many people who have large extended families, so this theory could very well work out for them. That's what fascinates me so much about the human race. There are so many different ways that we make families work. There is a quote that says: "It takes a town to raise a child." Large families that are close could be considered a form of "town" and together they all pitch in to help raise the children in the family. And as the family grows, which they inevitably do, there are more and more people in that family to pitch in and help out. The gay uncles and the lesbian aunts especially will be contributing in that way, because as you pointed out, they're less likely to have children of their own, so more of their resources can be used to help the family out.
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
  #39    
Old April 7th, 2013, 11:50 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
Each of us has our own unique experiences. My uncle is gay, but I've never met him, or his husband. Even though occasionally I see him on TV as he's The Globe and Mail's Chief political writer (John Ibbitson) and is interviewed regularly when something of interest occurs in Canadian Politics. It's funny, I've never met him, and yet he and I both share an interest in writing. We're both published authors, as is my mother.
He's already out, is he? Congrats for having pro/famous uncle though. I don't have any famous relatives

Ahh yes. With adoption laws liberalizing and homosexuals integrating themselves into mainstream society <-- which is why I disagree with Gay Pride Parade, but I digress, the theory won't be relevant anymore because gay people are just as selfish as straight people.
Reply With Quote
  #40    
Old April 13th, 2013, 06:03 AM
Jay0173's Avatar
Jay0173
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay0173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
He's already out, is he? Congrats for having pro/famous uncle though. I don't have any famous relatives

Ahh yes. With adoption laws liberalizing and homosexuals integrating themselves into mainstream society <-- which is why I disagree with Gay Pride Parade, but I digress, the theory won't be relevant anymore because gay people are just as selfish as straight people.
Would it surprise you to learn that more people who are straight, and gay supporters, attend gay pride parades and gay pride events than people who are gay? It's true. The thing is, the gay pride parade is not an expression of pride exactly as much as it's a political protest. The parade has always been a protest. Even in gay-friendly Canada, there is still lots of discrimination that we who are gay have to contend with, some of which is perpetrated by our own governments. For instance, me being a sexually active gay man in a monogamous relationship cannot donate blood or donate my organs should I pass away because of that fact. I am lumped in the same categories as prostitutes and drug users, who also are banned from giving blood or donating organs. It's pretty offensive.

And so Pride parades (protests) will continue, and I expect it to continue until all people all over the world are free from discrimination. The only people I know of who would want us to no longer march for equality are those people who would rather see us back in the closets where they believe we belong.
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
  #41    
Old April 13th, 2013, 11:41 AM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I don't see how Gay Pride integrates the gay population into mainstream society. I think respect for sexual orientation should be developed and is absolutely necessary to treat all people as they deserve, but Gay Pride I feel rather imposes a particular image of homosexuality that has nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but a sub-culture. See what I'm getting at?

Being gay has nothing to do with rainbows, or dressing in drag, or acting as effeminate as you can with a couple of other guys that are also effeminate. What about people that are queer and just dgaf? I don't see it as marching for equality, but being as outspoken as possible - it's important to modify your message to your audience. I don't want to see the queer back in the closet, but I don't want to see them appropriate rainbows or waving around pompoms either. There once was a day when rainbows were just rainbows. Now I can't display that without people thinking I'm making a statement - and that is the reason why I am against it. I am a conservative person who doesn't make statements - I make arguments. But now it's all about "expressing yourself" and I find that to be incredibly superficial. I think more of the people marching should take the example of CF members who march. They show me that queer people are normal people, and are contributing to society just like everybody else.

And your association with prostitutes and drug users goes as far as not donating blood. It's not offensive at all to me because there is no inherent connection. Drug users and prostitutes, I guess offend common sensibility - define that how you will, while gay men don't, so nobody's going to look down upon you because you share the same trait as not being able to donate blood and organs. They will for other reasons, but it's a false comparison and not really a reason to feel offended.

The reason that gay men are not allowed to donate blood and organs is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in that population. In fact, MSM (men who have sex with men, as it's known in the literature because it doesn't matter your orientation but your behaviour really) are responsible for a majority of the incidences of HIV/AIDS even though they are a small minority of the population. It is not discrimination that MSM are overrepresented in the statistics. Now I agree there should be some provisions, like a time delay due to the virus' undetectability shortly after infection, laid out for long-term monogamous relationships. But I don't think it's a big deal anyways. My girlfriend donates blood, I'm too much of a scaredy cat to do it so even if I was gay I'd just say aha! I'm not allowed thank you very much with no harm done to my masculinity!
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #42    
Old April 13th, 2013, 01:23 PM
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
Oops
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Yes and no really.

The ban was first put in place during the hiv/aids scare years.

Banning them now, especially sense a person is tested for STD's before donating, is stupid.

Even if they are infected I find it stupid to ban them, at least, from organ donation. Let them donate organs - Keep them for use in hiv/aids infected people.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #43    
Old April 13th, 2013, 02:17 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. X View Post
Yes and no really.

The ban was first put in place during the hiv/aids scare years.

Banning them now, especially sense a person is tested for STD's before donating, is stupid.

Even if they are infected I find it stupid to ban them, at least, from organ donation. Let them donate organs - Keep them for use in hiv/aids infected people.
Testing is fine. But, having a stock for infected people? Eh... I don't really trust the bureaucratic powers that be to never ever mix those up
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44    
Old April 14th, 2013, 05:17 PM
Jay0173's Avatar
Jay0173
Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Send a message via Skype™ to Jay0173
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
I don't see how Gay Pride integrates the gay population into mainstream society. I think respect for sexual orientation should be developed and is absolutely necessary to treat all people as they deserve, but Gay Pride I feel rather imposes a particular image of homosexuality that has nothing to do with homosexuality itself, but a sub-culture. See what I'm getting at?
Would it surprise you to learn that those exact sub-cultures exist beyond the LGBT community?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Being gay has nothing to do with rainbows
The Pride flag, or colours, has nothing to do with a rainbow. Each of the colours on the flag represent something. Originally, the flag featured 8 colours. But since 1979, the flag has had only 6. Here is what each of the colours on the current flag represents:

Red: Life
Orange: Healing
Yellow: Sunlight
Green: Nature
Blue: Serenity/Harmony
Violet: Spirit


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
or dressing in drag, or acting as effeminate as you can with a couple of other guys that are also effeminate.
A couple points: A good number of the people who dress in drag are not in fact gay. A lot are straight and dress in drag because they are performing artists. Being effeminate has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. There are plenty of effeminate guys who are actually straight. I know three such individuals who I work with. People automatically assume because their are more effeminate that they must be gay. But you know what they say about making assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
I don't see it as marching for equality, but being as outspoken as possible - it's important to modify your message to your audience.
History of the Pride Parade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_parade

Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but the information there is accurate.

Pride is a celebration of LGBT culture, but it is also a continual demonstration against discrimination. One only has to look at the signs marchers carry into the parade to see that each one is advocating a specific message.

As for modifying the message to our audience: Pride is ever changing. Some things stay the same, but other things evolve. Our audience is increasingly not of the LGBT community, but rather the gay supportive straight community. In 2014 Toronto will host World Pride, which is expected to draw in record crowds the likes of which the Village has never seen. People will be coming from all over the world, straight and gay alike to show their support for the LGBT community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
I don't want to see the queer back in the closet, but I don't want to see them appropriate rainbows or waving around pompoms either.
Rainbows have been used by religious organizations, by military groups, and by advocacy groups. It's a powerful symbol and I see nothing wrong with anyone using it. I'm actually surprised that you'd be against it. The funny thing is, almost everything we do in life serves to make a statement. For instance, a ring on someone's finger indicates their commitment to another individual, a powerful statement indeed. Almost everything you do in your life serves to make one statement or another. It's human nature.

Also, can you please refrain from using the term queer to refer to the LGBT community. The term is disrespectful.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
And your association with prostitutes and drug users goes as far as not donating blood. It's not offensive at all to me because there is no inherent connection.
Of course it doesn't to you, which is why you're so easily able to shrug it off. It is extremely offensive. I'm just sorry that you can't see it. Imagine, not being able to help someone else because who you love makes you the same, in the government's eyes, as someone who carries a dangerous disease. Insulting doesn't even begin to describe the discrimination there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
The reason that gay men are not allowed to donate blood and organs is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in that population. In fact, MSM (men who have sex with men, as it's known in the literature because it doesn't matter your orientation but your behaviour really) are responsible for a majority of the incidences of HIV/AIDS even though they are a small minority of the population. It is not discrimination that MSM are overrepresented in the statistics. Now I agree there should be some provisions, like a time delay due to the virus' undetectability shortly after infection, laid out for long-term monogamous relationships. But I don't think it's a big deal anyways.
Your information is out of date. The highest growth of HIV/AIDS is actually in the black straight community, and that largely due to lack of education on STDs, and because most are very fearful of the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS infected people and so do not get tested like everyone should. Even those not sexually active. Also, why is it that heterosexuals who engage in risky sexual behaviour do not face a life-time ban, while gays do, regardless of whether the person is in a monogamous relationship? The rules do not match the current medical and scientific evidence. The Red Cross, in fact, is a major organization responsible for collecting blood donations and they are trying to get the government to eliminate the life-time bans. The government is not listening, however, and is in fact ignoring scientific studies regarding this disease.
__________________

JAY
3411-1525-5963

Dark-Type Safari with: Sneasel, Vullaby & Liepard
Personal Website
Canadaquaria Forum nScale.net
"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
Reply With Quote
  #45    
Old April 14th, 2013, 05:38 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
Would it surprise you to learn that those exact sub-cultures exist beyond the LGBT community?
No, it wouldn't surprise me. But then again... why is it there? Some of the outfits, or lack thereof rather, just... why? Why does that need to be out in public? It's different than say what was formerly known as Caribana, which often comes up as a counter-argument due to skimpy clothing. The purpose of the outfits are different. Caribana is like elaborate caricatures of beach-ware, whereas some of what's on display at the pride parade really only makes sense in the bedroom for those interested.

It's kinda what warps the purpose of the event in the eyes of many from a cultural parade to a sex parade. Which I don't think is the intention. It's comes off as very one-track minded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
The Pride flag, or colours, has nothing to do with a rainbow. Each of the colours on the flag represent something. Originally, the flag featured 8 colours. But since 1979, the flag has had only 6. Here is what each of the colours on the current flag represents:

Red: Life
Orange: Healing
Yellow: Sunlight
Green: Nature
Blue: Serenity/Harmony
Violet: Spirit
I can understand most of the representations. A bit lost on the sunlight though. What's the relation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
Also, can you please refrain from using the term queer to refer to the LGBT community. The term is disrespectful.
Where does "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" fall into play in terms of offensiveness? Or purpose in the pride event? Kinda echoing what BlahISuck said below, I'd find the whole thing a lot more palatable if it was more of a social/cultural event. The city has a lot of them. You go, you listen to some music, have some food, maybe a street performance. You're not actively being force-fed statements. That's not a fun-day out for me.
__________________

Last edited by TRIFORCE89; April 14th, 2013 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46    
Old April 14th, 2013, 05:57 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Would it surprise you to learn that those exact sub-cultures exist beyond the LGBT community?
The very fact that they are subculture defines them against mainstream culture. There are plenty of us who don't identify with a subculture at all. It's like how you can be feminist without subscribing to a radical feminist subculture. Many gay people define themselves through their families, through their work, etc - but not through a subculture.

Quote:
The Pride flag, or colours, has nothing to do with a rainbow. Each of the colours on the flag represent something. Originally, the flag featured 8 colours. But since 1979, the flag has had only 6. Here is what each of the colours on the current flag represents:
The Pride flag has to do with a rainbow in the same way the Nazi's took the swastika. Sure it doesn't mean rainbow like roygbiv, but calling it the rainbow flag is synonymous with calling it the Pride flag. It's a fact of vernacular. The fact that the colours represents something doesn't mean identifying it as a rainbow is somehow in exclusion to that.

Quote:
A couple points: A good number of the people who dress in drag are not in fact gay. A lot are straight and dress in drag because they are performing artists. Being effeminate has nothing to do with one's sexual orientation. There are plenty of effeminate guys who are actually straight. I know three such individuals who I work with. People automatically assume because their are more effeminate that they must be gay. But you know what they say about making assumptions.
It's not about being gay or not. It's about whether gay people themselves identify with the subculture. I, personally don't identify with drag. And I know gay people who don't either... I don't know why you're misconstruing that I think it's somehow wrong to be gay. I'm emphasizing that most gay people are normal people who aren't involved in a subculture. It's pretty fringe, and most gay people, like most other people, like to live normal lives in the bound of mass culture.

Quote:
Rainbows have been used by religious organizations, by military groups, and by advocacy groups. It's a powerful symbol and I see nothing wrong with anyone using it. I'm actually surprised that you'd be against it. The funny thing is, almost everything we do in life serves to make a statement. For instance, a ring on someone's finger indicates their commitment to another individual, a powerful statement indeed. Almost everything you do in your life serves to make one statement or another. It's human nature.
I don't think it's appropriate for me to display a swastika in public, whether it turns the right way or the wrong way. Similarly, the Pride flag as associated rainbow with LGBT. It's something that is now deeply ingrained in the national consciousness. If I'm on campus and I see a rainbow button, am I going to think, oh they might be part of an obscure advocacy group? Of course not, it's a statement of alliance with the LGBT community.

Not everybody subscribes to making statements like you do. If I put a ring on my finger, that's probably because I'm conforming to social norms, not because I'm actively making a statement. Supporting the LGBT is most certainly an active statement, due to its progressive nature. You do things to make statements, but there are conservative people out there that don't make statements. We are silent, but because we are it doesn't mean you should overlook us.

Quote:
Also, can you please refrain from using the term queer to refer to the LGBT community. The term is disrespectful.
That's not a vibe I've felt from the LGBT community. Queer is just an umbrella term that encompasses everyone without a mainstream orientation that might be missed out by LGBT. It's used often, even in gay literature. It's offensive to you, but maybe that's because you grew up in a different time period. The term is being reappropriated by us young-uns as something to do with pride.

Quote:
Of course it doesn't to you, which is why you're so easily able to shrug it off. It is extremely offensive. I'm just sorry that you can't see it. Imagine, not being able to help someone else because who you love makes you the same, in the government's eyes, as someone who carries a dangerous disease. Insulting doesn't even begin to describe the discrimination there.
Discriminatory yes. I objected to the connection you made with prostitutes and drug users though, and I don't see that connection at all. Not being able to donate blood isn't usually a characteristic you use to group yourself with other people.

Quote:
Your information is out of date. The highest growth of HIV/AIDS is actually in the black straight community, and that largely due to lack of education on STDs, and because most are very fearful of the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS infected people and so do not get tested like everyone should. Even those not sexually active. Also, why is it that heterosexuals who engage in risky sexual behaviour do not face a life-time ban, while gays do, regardless of whether the person is in a monogamous relationship? The rules do not match the current medical and scientific evidence.
I don't know how quickly statistics change, but these are government statistics that are funded by taxpayer money. I've got data from the US and Canada. In terms of both prevalence and incidence, MSM do account for a plurality and disproportionately too.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida...at2011-eng.php
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/...-2007-2010.pdf
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.