Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (71766)	8/6/2003 5:21:45 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

By the way...I think you are a damn sight better than the person (CH) who you seemed to be chumming with yesterday. I say "seemed" because the evidence is unclear. There is an old saying that birds of a feather...well, I am sure you know it. You surely recall that a certain person on this thread had the support of only ONE bird (and it wasn't you)...after engaging in some rather despicable rhetoric coupled with terrible behaviour. There is another old saying: be careful of the company you keep. Who would fly with a bird who is devoid of substance--a donkey act without heart or soul. They sneak in from stage left or stage right to inflame and to incite. That is their mission. My mission is to speak face to face, and talk man to man.

To: Solon who wrote (71766)	8/6/2003 11:44:04 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That poster doth protest too much, methinks.

To: Solon who wrote (71766)	8/6/2003 1:44:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You had posted that heterosexuals "typically" find sodomy "repugnant". Yes I did and I qualified that by pointing out how people typically associate sodomy with fecal involvement. You said (by extension) that intolerance (as repugnance) was natural or immanent. I suggested it was not.” Any extensions that formed the foundations of how you represent me in this argument you are having with yourself are entirely YOUR own. ”I have NEVER misrepresented you.” I am sorry. I am starting to think that you believe that. The fact is I never have arguments with you. I think we could find a point of contention but I spend my thread space arguing only that whatever you are arguing against is not ME or MY position. You extract some childish point and label it as mine. You then go on to argue a more mature position as YOURs and draw conclusions about YOUR superior viewpoint. In fact they are both YOURS. I represent ME. YOU represent YOU. I represent MYSELF. You represent YOURSELF and some alien notion that you have extracted from other people's writing and then attribute to them. Several people have now pointed that out to you but you deny even the possibility. It has now become associated with your persona. Easy problem to fix…stop telling people they think one thing when they object and define their position as something else. Even when that happens you persist in telling them (over their objections) what their position on a topic is. It would be irrational for anyone to engage in a discussion with you on these terms. BTW most of the participants here are rational. ”I am the LAST person on this thread who may be reasonably accused of misrepresenting ANYONE.” Sorry but you don’t see yourself as others do. ”Let us take the incident yesterday where I made a reasonable response to your "repugnant" post. You said (by extension) that intolerance (as repugnance) was natural or immanent. I suggested it was not.” The extensions, which are entirely YOURS are misrepresentations of anything that represents my view point. ”So there were two bones of contention:” Neither of these bones exist. I saw that from the start. You refused to consider that you were misrepresenting my view point so you went on expounding rhetoric to argue two sides of a position. One the immature childish view of an unintelligent bigot (that would be the one you attribute to me) the other side would be a mature and superior view point (that would be the one you attribute to your self). However, both are of YOUR invention. Oh well, on to YOUR two points of contention. ”1). Is there a natural inbred repugnance by heterosexuals toward homosexuals (and presumably vice versa), or is such a repugnance a learned cultural behavior?” No. There is not a natural repugnance of one group toward individuals of the other as far as I am aware. Nor do I think repugnance of one group toward individuals of the other group is even typical in our society (culturally derived or otherwise). 2). Is "repugnance" the typical feeling of hetrosexuals (and presumably vice versa)...or is it NOT? NOT ”In both of these the "repugnance" is regarding the sex act itself although argument could (but need not necessarily) extend the repugnance to the actors as well as the act. “ The only act that I have identified as typically repugnant is sodomy. I qualified that by stating that the repugnance had to do with fecal involvement. Other acts may be thought of as repugnant for other reasons, such as fisting but there is nothing typical about the acts or the repugnance as far as I am currently aware. I argued with Neocon that there is nothing particularly offensive about any particular kind of coupling, grouping, or extended family household situations. I do not find it repulsive to think of men hugging or women being intimate. I do not think it is typical for most people to think of these things as repulsive. ”One would expect (if the feeling was genetically based) that homosexuals would also have a repugnance toward heterosexual sex. Do they? Typically, I mean?? Some of them may be repulsed at thoughts of doing it our way THEMSELVES. But do they find my doing it repugnant?” No I don’t think so. Again the typical source of repugnance is sodomy because it includes fecal involvement. This repugnance is typical regarding heteros who engage in sodomy as well. ”non-responsive, insulting, truly misleading and misrepresentative. …whining and personal invective--insults. ..barnyard behaviour. …ad hominems. ..stupidity out ..lowbrows and bullies …you feel inadequate …. whining or personal insults...then …recognize yourself as a weakling. …cheap shots …these pathetic little … suggestive of weak character and spinal deficiency.” I will take that under consideration. The extensions were all your own and unfortunately predictable. That is why I objected from the start and predicted that you would go on for days arguing against a straw man you label as ME. Simple thing to remedy but apparently you don’t see it as a problem so we probably wont be discussing any topics in the future.