See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: The Movie The 300 - Does Anyone Think XERXES Actually Dressed Like This??
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 12, 2007
Author: weired
Post Date: 2007-03-12 20:21:18 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 2871
Comments: 60
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Has anyone seen the movie? Comments? I thought it was going to try to historically accurate v. Troy, but ....
The movie is homosexual soft-porn.
You forgot to add: ". . . not that there's anything wrong with that . . ." Tom007's pictures of collagen-lipped six-pack-endowed warriors does seem the kind of thing Karl and W would like to vid.
It's a personal choice. As is humping
animals, polygamy, incest and formally marrying a Macy's store mannequin and
adopting children. It's all good :)
We should keep an open mind on this issue. Recent studies have claimed a link between homosexuality and the late or insufficient release of testosterone durig pregnancy. Another more recent study claims a link between homosexuality and being younger brother to an older brother. Ethologists have documented homosexual display behavior in betafish whose aquarium territory has been usurped by other male fish! Environment, ontogeny, and even genes may all play roles now unknown. Scientists have a lot more work to do, and hopefully they will do less of it among prison populations, a la Kinsey, . . . . not that there's anything wrong with that . . . .
This country was founded on freedom and we are a melting pot of many diverse people. I think we need to take a step back and accept a culture that only the most intolerant among us would object to.
Accepting it would be fine, but ignoring it would be fine also. Freedom of association also includes the freedom even to be homophobic. However, the endeavor to incorporate into the law distinctions and discriminations based on sexual preference is undesirable for several reasons. It violates the no-fairsey rule (no, not the no-fairy rule) that fundamental fairness is due everyone in our society. It also serves as a distraction from the real issues, such as, for example, how many people we are killing this month in illegal war crime invasions.
It may also be desirable. It is a distinction like male/female, which is a reasonable proxy for testosterone levels, level of aggression, upper body strength, duration of fertility, math ability, and verbal ability. Restricting service in combat, for example, to males, saves knowledge costs and spares reproductive capacity, and this is precisely the practice for societies that face real threats. It violates the no-fairsey rule (no, not the no-fairy rule) that fundamental fairness is due everyone in our society. First we'd have to agree on what fundamental fairness is. A distinction in law based on sexual preference is no more unfair than any other information-encapsulating distinction.
How far are you willing to go with this argument? Apparently you think that since soldiers' morale might be affected by the presence of gays, they should be banned from service. If white soldiers' morale might be affected by the presence of Blacks or AmerIndians, should they be banned from service?
#57. To: leveller (#55)
How far are you willing to go with this argument? As far as those that penned "civil rights" laws are. Apparently you think that since soldiers' morale might be affected by the presence of gays, they should be banned from service. What is the military for? If admitting gays decreases combat effectiveness or security of intelligence, it is certainly something to be considered. There is no free lunch though. Banning gays does not, of course, remove them all, and those that remain will be a greater security risk because a ban means they can be more easily blackmailed. This is the main trade off. If white soldiers' morale might be affected by the presence of Blacks or AmerIndians, should they be banned from service? Guy Odom suggests in America's Man on Horseback that the prince's soldiers should be mostly black, as their skin alone will more greatly intimidate citizens. Certainly whites have shown few qualms in the past about using non-whites against other whites. Though you haven't articulated it, I suspect you may take as a principle that those things that people do not consciously choose about themselves are not an acceptable basis for drawing distinctions. But most things about people aren't consciously chosen by anyone, let alone themselves, and even then often not rationally. The distinctions and their principle vectors remain; the nexus of effective actions remains the same. A refusal to admit or use them, combined with a set of desired ends that is nevertheless consistent with them, simply results in complicated Natal formulas to self-deceptively avoid scruple infringement. A desire for others to refuse to admit or use them, may be self-serving in another way, and possibly detrimental to those others.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: tom007 (#1)
#11. To: YertleTurtle (#2)
The movie is homosexual soft-porn.
#33. To: leveller, Quiffs, dolts and assorted big L libertarians (#11)
You forgot to add: ". . . not that there's anything wrong with
that . . ."
#36. To: Jethro Tull (#33)
It's a personal choice.
#48. To: leveller (#36)
Gay folk
#49. To: Jethro Tull (#48)
This country was founded on freedom and we are a melting pot
#54. To: leveller (#49)
However, the endeavor to incorporate into the law distinctions and discriminations based on sexual preference is undesirable for several reasons.
#55. To: Tauzero (#54)
A distinction in law based on sexual preference is no more unfair than any other information-encapsulating distinction.
Replies to Comment # 55.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 55.