The End of Firefox | Page 16 | INFJ Forum

The End of Firefox

This thread is fuckin' fucked up man.

It is only poisoned by a small worm. Just rest assured that I have cursed that little worm. Don't let this tiny thing worry you. Time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Is not different. But my reasoning for adopting the position that homosexuality is wrong is not because homosexuality is traditionally wrong. Can you see the very important difference?

No. I don't see this. I don't think you see it either.

Well yes, it is a traditional view.

Doesn't this contradict what you just said?

I don't believe in Christinaity because it is traditional.

Then why do you believe in it?

It is. But that's not the point. The question is: It is true or not?

That's exactly the point.

It's truthfulness is only a personal matter.
 
...who needs to explain to who...

New theories must be verified by tested theories...

I've been thinking about this....So Who 1 is the tested theory, and Who 2 is the new theory, yes or no? So theories answer to theories? Is this imagination?

Follow up question is: why is this supposed to offend people?
 
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
If you don't see it, I have nothing more to say. Its better to leave it like this for now.
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
"small worm"? "cursed"?
For what reason do you consider me a worm? And why would you curse me?
 
I cannot see your stuff. You are blocked and will not be unblocked. You don't get the privilege to defend yourself against me so don't bother. You blew it.
 
I've been thinking about this....So Who 1 is the tested theory, and Who 2 is the new theory, yes or no? So theories answer to theories? Is this imagination?

Follow up question is: why is this supposed to offend people?
Are you being ironic?
 
I'm out of here.
Anyway, I'm kind of alone in this, its not a wise thing on my part at all. Whatever I say, its still wrong. interesting, huh?
 
Yes.

No.

I don't know. People just get offended.

I see. Well it turns out you are wrong. Theories do not answer to theories. They might answer to facts, but in truth they do not answer to anyone as they are not sentient.
 
I didn't knew this. Are you reffering to judeo-christian tradition or something else?

I'm referring to the view of the 'judeo-christian' establishment and by that i mean the freemasonic el-ite who wear christianity as an outer camoflage

Their view was then reflected in the law of the land which they made. They perceive us, the people, to be their chattel and they have held this view since their norman and flemish ancestors invaded the british isles in 1066 and they surplanted the existing anglo-saxon nobility and enforced their law with a mailed fist

Yes, because most of the West societies are influenced by christian traditions still. In christian traditions marriage has a much more deep meaning and significance. Its significe the unique bond, spiritual between a man and a woman, only between a man and a woman. This is the very nature of marriage as is viewed by christians, betwen opposite sexes, because this is how God made things to be, this is the natural order.

That depends on what you mean by 'christian tradition'

If by that you mean the laws and culture forced on us by the el-ite then yes the church as part of the control structure of society has indeed interferred with many aspects of our lives

if however you mean the non-dualist teachings of a humble man who preached that we should love our neighbour and seek the kingdom of heaven within then i do not believe that marriage is part of that tradition

Marriage has been the building block of capitalism. Now the nuclear familiy is being swept aside as part of a move to change capitalist society into a fascist society where children are raised by the state

Although i do not agree with marriage i do not believe that children should be raised by the state

Other than that, in cultures where tradition is unaffected by judeo-christian values, marriage is mere a contractual understanding (sometimes with religious implications), which implies a certain set of commitments and rules for both parteners. The rules vary from society to society. Usually, the act of marriage is set by a civic institution.

The church and the state were for a long time part of the same construct which was geared towards controlling the working population in the interests of the owner class

There have in more recent times been more of a seperation of church and state as the workers have asserted themselves more and gained a toehold on the political system

The problem lies whithin where it is recognied the religious authority in this matter. Whithout religious implications, the act of marriage its released from its heavy/weighty implications, and it becomes a mere contract. I think what is happening is a clash of values, a war of values.
Like you said, society wants to develop its views. Tolerance and equality are the principal arguments for this. But I don't think the Western society is enough "de-christinised" for this to be readily accepted.

I don't think christianity is even much of a factor for most people regarding marriage

marriage for most people is considered one of the things they are required to do before they can consider themselves a rounded adult; i would argue it is not important for that end
 
Say what you want, equate homosexuality to bestiality if that is how you feel. Uphold the withholding of spousal and parenting rights to homosexuals if that is what your heart tells you to do. But I will still think you are messed up inside, backward, hateful and spiteful.


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website

A thorough reading of this thread proves my point. Hats off to Mozilla for accepting Mr Eich's resignation.
 
Change has never been an easy process. But we change and we experience the outcomes both positive and negative, we learn and we move on from there.

As far as your second part goes, that is just absurd. Procreation of a natural form will always be dominant. Homosexuality is a minority. THey have to fight hard to be heard, show off to be noticed. But they will always be a minority and they will always struggle with this. They will never be able to dominate the heterosexuals as the heteros have dominated them in the past.

I dont believe that heterosexuals have dominated homosexuals in the past, I think THAT is absurd, and the amount of actual heterosexuals who are willing to buy into that and feel guilt about it and feel that some kind of reparation should be made for it is ridiculous but also a good indicator that their thinking does not arise from their experience and therefore can not be falsified by experience, that a good thing really.

This is not about resisting change per se, which is as dumb as supporting change for change sake, which is kind of popular but the sort of things which are championed as change on a social scale, the attempts to challenge and overturn heternormativity for instance, would be insane on an individual scale, the assault on memory, attempts to scrub it and replace it with something entirely different, the passion for innovation and perpetual novelty rather than consistency and constancy, it would be impossible to practically live in this manner.

As you have said as a minority this group is liable to struggle, I do not see how allying with their attempts (or rather the attempts of some of them because I'm not that ready to generalise about them all, I do not appreciate that when people do it with regard to me whether it is me as part of the majority or a minority, most people have experience of both) to transform or dismiss the norms of the majority is really helping them with adjustment to being a minority and their relationship with the majority. This is why I think that most gay rights campaigns crucially need to be rethought and reframed as minority-majority relations issues rather than equality issues, especially where equality equates to sameness or uniform patterns.
 
Lol I didn't mean you in particular, I hadn't seen you speak much less argue til now.

There's a few people on here that have patterns to their arguments, how they begin. Ranges from submissive, "I think this, oh but I don't want to argue about it-" to more much more aggressive depending on the person. Both resulting in the same. The instigator is made out to look crazy or like an asshole. It's funny though cause all of this stuff is written down, you'd think -I'd think- more people would recognize what's going on but most seem to fall in line to the same kind of pattern. Funny stuff :p

I'm discussing, not arguing, I didnt think you meant me but I was interested in what you had to say.

I have observed what you are talking about here I think, both on this forum and on others elsewhere, it is part of what interests me about typology theory in its most broadest sense, if these patterns are discernable then can they be related to any set of criteria, ie age, status, gender/sex, social character or personality type.

There is another thread about the emotional poverty of online discussion which I posted and it was allauding to this.
 
A thorough reading of this thread proves my point. Hats off to Mozilla for accepting Mr Eich's resignation.

Dude you got issues but you telegraph them really well so I guess people make a conscious decision whether they engage in conversing with you or not.

I would hope that your sort of approach to things diminishes over time.
 
im begging you to cease your dabbling in Orwell.

What dabbling are you on about?

I've read all his novels, essays, journalism, letters and two biographies, I dont dabble, I'm virtually an Orwell scholar and its why this sort of thing concerns me.

Unlike yourself who its already been established are pretty Orwellian in a different sense of the word. Then again you could probably change the meaning of that word if you like, I mean its all good and what consequences could there be to that?
 
http://www.usforacle.com/should-sam...-to-adopt-children-con-1.2805321#.Uz9ed6L1Xwk

In the streets of Paris this week, an infuriated crowd rocked the streets leading up to the Eiffel Tower to protest a controversial French bill that would legalize gay marriage.

This is how messed up this apparent discussion has become, online, offline, anyplace.

Who outlawed gay "marriage"? What is marriage and how can there be such a thing as gay "marriage"?

There is no way in which the word legalisation belongs in this discourse or discussion, homosexual has been decriminalised, a long ass time ago. Homosexual unions are not like recreational use or trade in cannibas or any other criminal activity which has been outlawed.

This is all a framing of the discussion in such a manner as it becomes emotive, incendiary and ramps or escalates it rather than permitting a proper discussion of what is going on, what is expected or hoped for from any proposed change and whether or not that is a legitimate aim or one which the state should be involved in introducing or furthering even if it is a legitimate aim.

Its not within the power of the state, I would suggest, to "legalise" the homosexual reframing or redefination of marriage, ie confer validity upon, and if it attempts to it will only succeed in alienating more and more people from the state, making it appear more and more like it is headed for a legitimacy crisis, given that its popular with the UK conservative party I'm not convinced this not precisely what some politicians have in mind you know. I dont see the benefit, to anyone at all, in attempting to engage in thought policing and newspeak of this sort or effectively outlawing anyone who doesnt see the sense in it or does not conform to that line of thinking. As has already been mentioned it is liable to be the majority, and probably in more cases than not move the majority who've not cared either way to one of hostility, if not immediately then eventually as the worst elements pushing this agenda get more and more bold in their out put.
 
This is how messed up this apparent discussion has become, online, offline, anyplace.

Who outlawed gay "marriage"? What is marriage and how can there be such a thing as gay "marriage"?

There is no way in which the word legalisation belongs in this discourse or discussion, homosexual has been decriminalised, a long ass time ago. Homosexual unions are not like recreational use or trade in cannibas or any other criminal activity which has been outlawed.

This is all a framing of the discussion in such a manner as it becomes emotive, incendiary and ramps or escalates it rather than permitting a proper discussion of what is going on, what is expected or hoped for from any proposed change and whether or not that is a legitimate aim or one which the state should be involved in introducing or furthering even if it is a legitimate aim.

Its not within the power of the state, I would suggest, to "legalise" the homosexual reframing or redefination of marriage, ie confer validity upon, and if it attempts to it will only succeed in alienating more and more people from the state, making it appear more and more like it is headed for a legitimacy crisis, given that its popular with the UK conservative party I'm not convinced this not precisely what some politicians have in mind you know. I dont see the benefit, to anyone at all, in attempting to engage in thought policing and newspeak of this sort or effectively outlawing anyone who doesnt see the sense in it or does not conform to that line of thinking. As has already been mentioned it is liable to be the majority, and probably in more cases than not move the majority who've not cared either way to one of hostility, if not immediately then eventually as the worst elements pushing this agenda get more and more bold in their out put.

1. The thing with France up there is more than a year old. That bill already went through.

2. If people really don't care then why should it move them to hostility? Unless of course said people are actually two-faced cowards and only pretend to not care when things are going their way.

I think there should be a thought crime for a few things. Disingenuous bullshit would be one of them.
 
[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION]

Also marriage is legally defined, legitimized and institutionalized by way of requiring a marriage license. It is legally a civil matter and therefore the state is already in it by default.

Legislation does belong in this discussion unless that were to change and they were to revoke the license requirement.