1. Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. FAIL.
2. Natural rights are grounded in human nature. FAIL.
3. Human nature is a rational subtance(?) FAIL.
4. The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction. ONLY BECAUSE YOU CALL IT 'THE REPRODUCTIVE ACT', and by the way, YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT. FAIL!!!!!
Holy crap, you sounded like CM. I mean, you usually sound similar, but this time, I had trouble believing that you weren't CM. Ok, seriously, is this Stand in Stan talking?
Im not a huge fan of homosexuality but only the act of it (mainly cause i don't understand it) but i also don't like Brittany Spears and Madoner but i don't have an unfounded hatred of people who listen to there music and i don't hate gays. This is the problem people don't understand something so they hate it or are scared of it.
Would you mind trying that argument again without all the cursing and personal attacks? And leave the political assessments out as well. I think you do yourself a disservice when you mix rational argument with persuasive speech.
is it just me or can you justify to be for and against anything/everything if you argue (falsely) from the standpoint that every behavior in nature is automatically good and should be mimicked (because if you look hard enough you can find nearly every behavior and the opposite in one species or another or if you even just baselessly assert that one behavior is "natural" or not)
What's unnatural here is that a bigot like nododon still exist in the age of the super information highway. Nododon must be a closet who's convinced himself that the devil is sending him forbidden homo-radio brain waves to tempt him into turning his back on zombie Jesus. Standinstann ftw
What people do in the privacy of their own lives, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of other people, is their own damn business. End of story.
Unless you are willing to suppose that the strait agenda of new orleans is to expand marti gras to the rest of the country and convince decent folk that their radical strait lifestyle is okay; you can not say the same for the people at this street festival by simply substituting the word "strait" for the word "gay".
you can call me a dumbfuck all you want, it doesn't make you less wrong.
If your argument here is "mouth is for eating, butt is for pooping, vagina is for sexing" you'l have to watch the video again; i already addressed the falatious "natural law" BS. If we were purely instinctive beings, that would be quite true; we aren't.
People have a right to not want anything to do with homosexuality. If a person wants to be part of a party that rejects homosexuality, that is that person's right.
And we are all bigoted against some type of person.
You are bigoted against anti-homosexual people.
That's okay, though, Stan. Because that is your right to be bigoted against people like Ryan and me too, for that matter.
But I don't care if you have homosexual tendencies. What you do in your bed, is your business.
I have absolutly no idea what you mean by "having anything to do with homosexuality"
If a personn wants to support segregation, racial hatred, or dehumanization of people who arent like them; you're absolutly right, they have the right to do that; what's you're point?
You said in this video that sex for pleasure is to "express love." My first thought is how is doing harmful things to another person's body, an expression of love?
Nonetheless, no matter how Ryan Sorba worded his upset with CPAC, for having allowed a homosexual group to participate, he was correct.
The GOP has put off to be the party that is against the pushing of homosexuality on the whole of society.
Okay, Stan, you're a homosexual. But why use the government to push that on others?
To the first point, I said that when two people have sex for thir own pleasure, the pleasure of their partner, AND TO EXPRESS THE LOVE BETWEEN THE TWO, it becomes a purely romantic act.
I did not say that sex for pleasure alone is an act of love; and I did not comment on people who may be harming eachother.
to the second point; the only "agenda" on the part of gay people is to have the same rights and liberties that the rest of us have. that to me is a perfectly reasonable agenda. (con't
To the third point, I'm not a homosexual, but if i were, I would be very, very, scared of any person who insisted that being gay was to forfit ones natural human rights.
Yes, Stan, you said that the "end of which is to express love."
And the most talked about sexual practice of homosexual men is inserting things in each others rectum. That is very harmful to the body. When I was growing up, if someone told another to "stick it up" the person's rear end, that was not a loving thing being expressed.
I don't believe that Ryan was saying that homosexuals forfeit all of one's natural human rights, but those that pertain to heterosexual sex and the outcome of such.
first; A purely romantic act is to express love, yes.
second; there isn't a single human right that aanyone is entitled to because of the way in which they have sex.
third, inserting a penis into a rectum is painful at first as is vaginal sex; I can't believe i even need to talk about this, but; the two are more or less equivelent in terms of bodily danger, and what's more, what difference does it make; I wouldn't outlaw S&M either
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why do you call him an asshole? Isn't that what you are all about?
You worship assholes. You dream about assholes. You lick assholes. You fuck assholes. You suck sperm out of assholes.
Now if called him a pussy I could understand that because you hate pussy.
Get it right asshole.
See I called you an 'asshole' because I don't like assholes. That's where we shit out stinky fecal matter. Get a mirror and check it out. You might have to wait a while but pretty soon you will figure it out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He is not a bigot. That pertains to racism. He just doesn't agree with the gay agenda to recruit young men into a lifestyle that is both physically and emotionally destructive. Same sex attraction is instinctively confused behavior.
This is why people like Ryan seem radical to you. Google the following titles and see for yourself, then be sure to comment. I would appreciate your input.
Bigotry pertains to hatred of a person because of a superficial difference between them and you.
I have never seen one of these imaginary recruting stations where gay people give a shit what the sexual orientation of others is; I have sen religous programs that do.
People like Sorba seem radical to me because they are denying simple scientific and social truths because of their own subjective religous views.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Please Stan,
I find it very difficult (I don't dare use the word hard) to envision two guys having butt sex in a romantic way at all. It is nothing more than perverted lust and is not an expression of 'love'.
I guess there could be a few exceptions butt for the most part it is a 'get your rocks off' party.
Same sex attraction is a behavioral gender identity emotional quirk and nothing more. There is no gay gene and gays develop their gay tendencies through life experiences.
To the first point, I'm sorry you feel that way; and I'm sorry that you choose to believe that every sexual act except for that between a married man and woman is an act of lust. Gay people, in fact, fall in love; as do non married people, and people who never intend to marry at all,
to the second point, that's a soceological generalization that you have no information in which to make.
To the third; absolutly no data supports that statement, and there is evidence to the contrary.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stan is an idiot and so are you. It is not instinctively normal for a male human to look at another male human's hairy asshole and say: "Oh I would love to make 'love' to you"
It's not about the act of butt sex it is about same sex attraction. You have a gender identity 'problem' and you refuse to admit it. Just like an alcoholic won't admit they have a drinking problem.
Go ahead and shread your assholes to pieces, I really don't care. Butt (lol) don't tell me it's normal.
I pay close attention how gays try and twist information to justify their behavior. Why don't you just admit that somewhere along the path of experiences somebody (a guy) sucked another guy's cock and then felt a bit ashamed of himself because he knew it was wrong. But rather than admit his feeling of guilt he had this whole group of other cocksuckers who welcomed him into their cocksuckers club. Now he feels OK with having sucked a cock and can keep sucking cocks because it hides his shame.
And again, an agenda is what you have, to supress people at no real gain, to want equal rights is a much different matter.
But alas, once again I'm leaving this "discussion" you're too busy spouting overused arguments and throwing personal insults and words that really are boiling down to bigotry and not wanting to accept that some people are different to you.
LOL It's not me that's telling myself anything. It is the way it is.
You just keep telling yourself it's 'normal' and the debate will go on and on and on until everyone comes to the obvious conclusion that homosexuality should remain a private issue and to keep it that way.
I See so you believe if someone is different they are below you and should not be treated equally and fairly. I See people like you make me Sick to call my self Human knowing that people like you hated other people because of the skin colure or if they born with a disability I hope one day you will see beyond the hate and see the these people you hate are just people like. you no matter what they do or how they think.
@Jack101f Hey jackoff, skin color and other disabilities have nothing to do with same sex attraction. I would treat the condition the same as I would for a kleptomaniac or a compulsive gambler. These are disorders that have to do with a persons behavior. They are not born with it, it is developed.
@nododon the reason people who have addictions like gambling or any thing else for that mater are (sometimes forcibly ) given medical help is not because a desire too gamble is unnatural (not that good and natural are synonymous) but because there desire to do those things has become so strong that it overwhelmed there ability to chose not too there by taking away there freewill that's what an addiction is.
@nododon homosexuality is not an addition because homosexuals can go without sex by choice at lest as well as heterosexuals can, so for homosexuality to be considered an addiction so would heterosexuality and all sexual desire for that mater (witch I'm not saying it is because like I said you can choice not to have sex )
@255ad It's an obsession. Google these two sites and see for yourself:
Up Your Alley 2008 zombietime
The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century
Sorba has a problem with anal sex, I don't. I have a concern about same sex attraction being considered normal. It's not normal no matter how hard you try and defend it. It is most often a guilt complex of an experience in the experimental stage of sexuality (adolescence) that went a little too far (oral sex / anal sex).
@255ad Now what happens is the often younger man desires sex and is rather curious so he experiments with a friend or is molested by an older gay man. Then the individual is faced with guilt feelings unless he decides to remove his guilt by believing these fucking assholes like you who tell him 'it's normal'. So he enters the either bi-sexual or full on homosexual lifestyle to redeem himself. What he needs to do is simply realize his act was wrong, admit it, and then get on with his life.
I) don't believe gay or strait child molestation or rape of any kind is "normal" or morally acceptable.
2)the only reason some one who experiments then realises there not gay would be ashamed is because they've been told it's wrong and unnaturally in the first place.
@nododon supose a young lesbian is raped as child but convinced her self it was OK and that she enjoyed it by entering into a number of loveless strait relationships with men because people like you convinced her any heterosexual encounter has to be more normal then her natural inclination
P.S don't say the that fact she was raped makes it different you didn't assume it made it any different for me
@nododon "What he needs to do is simply realize his act was wrong, admit it, and then get on with his life" well it depends on the two totally different and not at all synonymous situations you presented if he was indeed raped as child yes he does in deed need to except it was wrong thing that was don too him but that would also be true of any child molested child girl or boy.
@nododon if he experimented then turned out to be strait the only reason for him too feel guilty is becase people like youconviced him it was wrong in the first place. and like I said morally a lesbian girl entering into bunch a of strait relationships convinced her natural inclination is wrong by you people, would just as bad as the reverse. no what you need too do if you experiment and get it wrong is admit you got wrong and move on with your life.
@nododon i wouldn't it be better if you stopped saying gay sex is abnormal in the first place and stop the guilt that way because if we shut up there'd still be a lot of naturally born gay men feeling guilty because of you
by the way consensual sexual experimentation however misguided and child rape are not synonymous
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Attraction is the issue, not the act. Heterosexuals can kink any way they want if they consent to it, but homosexuality is abnormal attraction to begin with. And with most gays it is a lust driven act.
Up Your Alley 2008 - zombietime
See for yourself. Guys sucking guys off in the streets, pissing on each other, jerking off out a second floor window.
That's love right?
You fucking bullshit artist. You know what it is. You just hide behind your little pretend wall of tolerance. What horseshit.
You didn't say that attraction was the issue; you said "a man wanting to make love to another mans anus" is unnatural, and your right; fortunatly gay men do not make love to other mens anuses they make love to other men.
Since you're now envoking attraction; I'll say that people, gay and strait alike, are attracted to all different kinds of body tipes and different kinds of people (con't)
There isn't a single medical or psychological journal that defines attraction between any two people as "abnormal"; one might think that a skinny person being attracted to a big person is abnormal; that does not make it so.
Second, I have never in my entire life seen oral sex being preformed in the street, people urinating on eachother; at all, or jerking off out a window; and what's more that is not a typical behavior of any people gay or strait (cont)
But realize, you are not against homosexuality in order to deal with the widespread "jerking off out of windows" problem.
You are against it because something or somebody somewhere told you that it's wrong, and proceeded to convince you that gay people pee on eachother in the streets and jerk off out of windows.
Girls Gone Wild and Mardi Gras is a party for normal sexual entertainment.
Up Your Alley in S.F. is a male dick sucking, hairy ass fucking, masturbating and sperm shooting out a second floor window, toy bone up the ass pissing festival.... And it is for same sex attraction.
You still have to explain to me why I shouldn't be worried that the people at marti gras are going to push their radical strait agenda on my children, and try to make them think that its okay for a girl to jerk off a guy in public.
i don't want that kind of heterosexual lust pushed on my kids. i want the straits out of our schools, out of our public parks, and in the privacy of their own homes where their perversion belongs!
You literraly just said that "Sexual Entertainment' is okay as long as its strait people having public sex for entertainment; well i don't want you pushing your heterosexuality on me or my kids.
The answer to the above is of course that marti gras is marti gras, and every day life is everyday life.
Again, you can call me whatever you want, it doesn't make you less wrong, and it doesn't make you less inconsistant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A girl jerking off a guy in the middle of the street should be illegal even if the act is a normal one. Any homosexual act is abnormal and should be illegal in public. Sex for entertainment is fine as long as it is heterosexual entertainment. Sexual acts of any kind straight or gay, in public, should be illegal. Gays can go in private and tear their assholes apart for all I care, just don't do it in public. And don't claim it is normal either. Same sex attraction is abnormal. Get it?
If all public sexual activity is wrong, then both marti gras and the Sf street festival are examples of something that needs to be corrected. You can not single out the SF festival.
this is a totally seperate issue from homosexuality.
But that's not what you saidl you used the sf festival as a symbol of "the gay lifestyle" and then denounced it for it's being public sex along with marti gras.
One last thing, you just said that sex for entertainment is fine as long as its strait people having the sex; but at the same time you accused gay sex of being a purely lustful act. Sex for entertainment alone is a purely lustful act weather or not its gay people having it.
I don't mean to pick on you, but that is just totaly inconsistant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No Stan, it's the same issue because it portrays the abnormal relationship that gays engage in. Their attraction is a perversion of normal feeling that people should have for one another. Men should find women attractive and women should find men attractive. Gays are confused and have feelings that come from a gender identification problem they experienced in life. Men and women who engage in casual sexual activity are just carelessly playing with their normal instincts.
You are saying that is abnormal for a person to be attracted to the same sex yet gays have been a round ever since the dawn of man and even in chimps homosexuality has been observed.
A just to ask what has gays ever done to you?
Nothing then keep your insensitive comments to your self pleas
Had to jump in here as well; a part of me can't believe that we need to have this conversation, but homosexuals arent the only people who practice oral sex; and I don't hear women who do so being refered to as "cocksuckers"
what you are doing here is called projection; these people are not ashamed of who they are, and are only ashamed of YOU for constantly discussin what they and every other human being on the planet does in their bedroom. (con't)
For a person who constantly accuses homosexuals of subjecting people to their "lifestyle" I find it crass that you discuss in detail their so called "life style" exclusively.
Secondly; to your comment that homosexuality being "normal" is something that we tell our selves; The revelation that homosexuality is indeed normak (IE; not a mental disorder) was brought to us by the psychological community; and now the community of geneticists. (con't)
And the reason that you are aobut to say that the entire scientific community is engaged in a liberal conspiracy to make homosexuality seem okay; is that you have to.
Because whatever else may be said about you, you at least have sense and decency enough to NOt believe that a loving God would create people a certain way, and make that way an intrinsic evil.
BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!! You are saying for them to hate them self for no reason and even though they know there is nothing wrong with what they are doing they know if they tell others they might have the same close minded view as you.
Genetalia is not a person; we do not make love to assholes or vaginas, we make love to people, who happen to have those parts.
You have, in your last comment, LITTERALLY defined same sex attraction as "attraction to a mans anus" and subsequently defined heterosexuality as "attraction to a womans vagina or a mans penis."
this coming from a person who refers to others as being "idiots" (con't)
I don't know if you're a religous homophobe, or just a macho homophobe, but in either case, I find it hard not to repeet that we make love to PEOPLE not parts; and we do this (gay and strait) in a variety of ways, and through a variety of "ports".
It is clear and obvious to me that if you are not indeed a bigot, the only other reason that you could possibly define love making this way is to not know anything whatsoever about human relationships.
With all due respect i don't really care what some people find objectionable or unobjectionable; two presumably naked men (it was after all mostly a picture of their heads and torsos) is unobjectionable to me, and at least as unobjectionable as a picture of a man and a woman embracing.
I used such an immage in my video to emphisize the word "love".
When you read that quote of his about "natural rights" I could not help but think of how that same argument justifies rapists, child molesters, and wife beaters.
How can you say something like that without even thinking about what it means?
A couple of days ago, I had never heard of this idiot. I watched his yelling match, and realized whatever career he was embarking on, is basically over now. He couldnt even help himself, his hatred of gay and lesbians came running on out there. Surprised he didnt say N***** why he was at it. It wouldnt have changed much, he's an idiot, and will always be an idiot.
I would likewise take pride were it not that we are forsaking one extreme for the other. I do not think it is right to be hateful towards homosexuality, but our society is moving to embrace it in a completely wrong fashion.
If I were to say that I think homosexuality is unhealthy, I would be attacked and hated by people claiming to support tolerance and "understanding."
What good does it do us to exchange one bigotry for another?
ahh, but it is one thing to say homosexuality is unhealthy (provided you have proof), rather than blatantly hating/discriminating those who chose to live their lives in the way they chose.
Look, I posted a comment that some people who want to hear what Stan had to say may not want see that image of two men he put in his video. That only very very loosely implies a non-pro-gay standpoint. And yet I receive poor comment points for it.
I cannot make even neutral statements without being spurned in most crowds. How is that not "blatantly hating/discriminating those who chose to live their lives in the way they chose?"
Its so scary when you see people like this preach such words of hate. Not only are these bad people promoteing intalerents, but are scareing some good decent people from being themselves....
Everyone should have the right to be who they want to be, as long as they don't stop others...(with actions OR words alike)
This is one of the reasons I subscribe to you. You hit the nail on the head as always.
Neocons like Ryan Sorba and Rush Limbaugh need to be purged from the Republican party if it is to survive. We cannot allow it to be hijacked by fringe-nuts and hatemongerors!
That last picture of the Tea Party activists(?) reminded me of a tragedy that occurred earlier this week. I live in Austin TX, and I drove by the Echelon IRS building Thursday morning, while it was still in flames. What scared me the most wasn't that it happened, it was that not many people in polls thought of it as a terrorist attack, but rather Joe Stack expressing his freedom of speech. When people confuse terrorism with patriotism, that scares the shit out of me.
Except the guy that crashed into the IRS building wasn't a tea partier. Joseph Andrew Stack's manifesto contains criticisms of the government for not getting healthcare passed and ends with a stab at capitalism and praise of communism. Anyone who tells you that this guy was a "crazy right-winger" is misinforming you.
I honestly don't understand why so many conservatives use the bible as justification of their homophobic agenda's, you know the bible also says it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery among other unscrupulous things. I mean come on people i thought we learned this in the 60's everyone deserves rights.
I'm just throwing out there that I haven't seen this sorba speech. I've had a case brief to write (law school, lol) and missed pretty much all the news, plus olympics this week.
Usually I would be in the know about this sort of thing. By no means am I defending Ryan Sorba, since I don't know exactly what he said. I'm just tackling some of what you said, and some of what I've read in the comments here.
(continued) I have an intense distaste for excessive regulation, be it environment-related, health-related, education-related, or moral-related. Virtue cannot be compelled by human institutions.
That said, I have an equally strong distaste for those who make the straw man argument that those against homosexual acts necessarily hate homosexuals. Not saying you've done that, but I do understand the frustration many neoconservatives feel on the issue.
Natural law and natural rights are conflated. At the very least, they have been conflated in our nation's founding documents, and the intersection of the two informed them.
And (I know I'll get thumbs down for this) I happen to believe homosexual acts are immoral. I believe a number of things are immoral, and it does not keep me from acknowledging the existence of the right to do what is wrong, so long as it is non-aggressive.
Obviously, I have a problem with the Republican party. (cont)
I think what he's understandably worried about is that CPAC being infiltrated is the first step down the road to controlling speech by the OTHER prong. Now, I don't care if gays want to be gays, but I DO care about what some people are going to want us to say. That ultimately, whether liberal or conservative, you'll be walking on eggshells if you criticize homosexuality. Does anybody ever say "You're entitled to your own opinion" half as much as "Stop hate speech" anymore? Hello, speech police!
exactly, and the fact of the matter is; he doesn't care about people who use birth controll (that I know of) he doesn't want the age of consent lowered to 10 or 11, he doesn't care about natural laws or natural rights; he just hates gays, and has looked for anything that might seem to justify that hatred.
I despise nationalists, conservatives, religious bigots and all others who hate gay people. Homosexuality is natrual, these dogmas and religion are man made.
Being a nationalist doesn't automatically mean that you hate gay people. That is not in it's definition, and saying that it is is stereotyping, the same stereotyping that you clearly hate.
So you mean to say that exclusively of nationalists? The context you have supplied tends to imply that you are saying this of conservatives and "religious bigots." In those terms I am saying that you would have to have never met anyone for your statement to be true.
But if you mean that exclusively of "nationalists" then your statement may be true, as basically no one prefers to call themselves one.
Regardless, you did imply that all conservatives want to horrifically murder homosexuals.
I dunno, alot of BNP (British National Party, or Nazi Party as I like to call them) members are quite proud of it for some odd reason.
Alot of religious people ARE bigots to gay people though, but of course I know not all religious people are like that. (Unfortunatley alot do seem to be though)
none of those societies you mentioned are; 1, governments, or 2; intellectual to any degree.
They are certainly hirarchies, but they are not governments in any sense other than the most loose definition. They are certainly not political governments.
I'm not sure how vague that was, i was pretty specific, but; the reason to think that our genetic ancestors did not possess a degree of intellect is that they did not create works of art or form political governments.
disagree strongly that human relationships are intellectual. seems to me that we follow our urges and then (some of us) rationalise them as choices. sorba doesn't recognise that urges get shaped in childhood and maybe before you're born and are then largely immutable. problem seems to be a lot of right wing nuts have forgotten jesus' message about acceptance
By intellect, i do not mean "intelligence, ability to abstract, or ability to problem solve"
I mean the ability to conceptualize; that is to understand a certain kind or class of thing, and to know what that thing is like even when there is no perceptual example present or possible.
great video Stan. not that i don't like your reviews (they are great !) but i would also be happy if you would continue to make videos with topics like that or similar ones.
I'm glad you're talking about this. Not living in America, I'd never heard of Sorba 'til now, but similar kinds of things happen all over the place.
In Germany, no one enjoys folk music because they're now too associated with Nazi propaganda, despite the lyrics being politically neutral. In the UK, no one puts the Union Jack (that British flag) on a flagpole because that implies membership of the BNP (extremist right party). So sad.
Everything we, as humans, do is biological. Sex is biologocial but the ffects of romance etc. are just as biological and instictual. What else could it be?
emotional and intellectual; that btw is not limited to romance; man is in fact the only intellectual animakl, the only artistic animal, the only political animal, the only religious animal, etc.
Emotion and intellect has a biological origin and basis. Humanity is novel in many ways, but those novelties stem from our unique biology (well, our biology and culture, but the capacity for culture is directly enabled by our biology).
Following Sorba's line of argument (that natural rights stem from biology), any human behavior could be regarded as biological/natural and therefore no behavior implies a forfeiture of natural rights.
That is; it can always be traced to either the teabaggers or the people who suck up to them. and it's the sucking up that worries me. I don't think that Republicans are intrinsically racist, but when the point is made that President Obama's parents were married, and Scott Brown utters the words "I don't know about that", what other conclusion can one draw?
WHY doesn't Scott brown believe that Obama's parents were married? because he's black? That is the only conclusion that I can draw.
More of us know who's trying to infiltrate us than you give us credit for. 4 weeks ago, I might have been averse to negative comments about Palin. But she pretty much lost whatever remaining mystique she had when she joined Fox News. And we did heckle Rick "Bilderberg" Perry when he got on the capitol steps at our July 4 Tea Party. Our focus is Constitutional law and it's preservation. Perhaps I don't speak for all the revolutionaries, but my circle is even putting guys like Beck to task.
I would only disagree with the point that the intellect is not biological. Since the intellect is an emergent phenomena of the brain, a biological object, the intellect is necessarily biological by extension. If anybody is going to make an argument for morality from nature that doesn't involve evolved instincts of morality, all things are permissible by nature alone. Of course, I believe that morals are inherent to nature and are discovered through the evolutionary process.
Why do you say that the intellect is an emergent phenomena of the brain? the brain opperates from particulars; this thing or that, this chair or that. The intellect opperates from universals; IE; "That which applies to ALL chairs, ALL dogs, ALL humans, ALL people; etc.
That's a very Socratic and, I think, obsolete paradigm. The brain is a physical object with specific functions. One of those functions is the intellect. When the neurones of the brain interact, the intellect emerges from that organisation.
If Descartes is right and we think, therefore we are, and thinking is a product of firring neurons, then a person is a verb, not a noun. Of course, if e=Mc^2 is true, nouns and verbs are the same thing. But if that's true, then Descartes is wrong.
If nouns and verbs are one and then same I still exist, even when I'm not thinking. I think because I am. Anyway, I'm getting off track.
Because the brain is foundational to the intellect, the intellect has a biological nature. As evidence, your intellect is altered according to mood, sleeping patters and quality, as well as the administration of drugs. Your intellect could even be shut down through anesthesia. Does my biological paradigm make sense to you?
First of all, it isn't Socratic at all; Platonists thought that concepts existed in heaven; I'm saying that our ability to comprehend universals can not be a function of the brain which opperates from particulars.
Your claim that the intellect is a function of the brain is entirely unproven, unfounded, and untested.
That is; that the brain its self can opperate from universals has yet to be determined, and I suspect, never will be as the intellect is an immaterial organ. (con't)
secondly, I don't see what descartes has to do with anything.
Third, you're right to say that "the brain is foundational to the intellect in a sense; the brain is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for intellectual thought.
You and I can not immagine a triangle, any triangle we immagine will always be of some shape size and color; in order to THINK triangle (that is triangularity) we don't use our brains; that is; we don't opperate from particulars; we are not thinking of a perceptually present object; we are thinking of a non perceptual, non present; idea; which is not how the brain as such opperates.
The brain operates on abstract concepts like "perfect" triangles all the time. Just because you use a particular brain does not mean you are incapable of thinking about a universal. Universals are hardwired into us, polygeneticly. Geometric shapes and colors can be seen in their "perfect" forms during psychedelic trips. If mathematically perfect shapes and colors can exist in a computer, why can't they exist in a vastly more complex brain? If you are thinking, you are using your brain.
An abstraction is the ability to discriminate between two perceptual objects; a concept is the ability to comprehend that which there is no perceptual example of.
If I am percieving I am using my brain; if I am thinking I am using my intellect. Without my brain i can no think at all, but i don't think with it.
The last sentence appears to be a self contradiction. If you can't think without your brain, how can you possibly not think without it?
I think what you are trying to describe is analogous to a "virtual machine" where a computer exists within a computer as pure software. No matter what, the "true" computer will always be used when the virtual one functions. The intellect might be where the thinking happens, but the brain is where the intellect happens. It is nested in biology.
necessary but not sufficient is the opperative phraze. Without our brains we couldn't think at all, but we don't think with them. Without our opperating systems we couldn't surf the net at all but we don't surf with them; etc.
The brain is the organ of sense, memory and immagination; none of which are conceptual.
So you deny that concepts can exist as the neurological activity of the brain?
You seem to have conflicting ideas because you seem to acknowledge some form of nested hierarchy by also indicate that the brain and intellect are necessarily discreet. The nature of more basal layers of the hierarchy still apply to the higher level ones.
Yes; I deny that concepts exist as nurological activity of the brain; there either exists a sameness between certain classes or kinds of things or not; if it does not; then all of science and philosophy must be dismisses as a figment of our imaginations.
Well, some philosophers have made the point that the "real" world is inherently unknowable. Given the necessity of neopragmatism and the failure of philosophy to find the principle of ultimate truth, and the likely failure of science to do the same, I can see why all that we know could be fiction and, indeed it may very well be. I don't believe humans have the ability to know the ultimate truth, so we pragmatically accept the best possible understanding we can have knowing it could be wrong.
those philosophers were wrong. the only things that we can know with absolute certinly are those things the oppositte of which are impossible (there can be no odd 2's, no three sided squares, etc.) Everything else we know; NOT with varying levels of belief, as descarts thoght, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
In that sense I agree with you, we can not know absolute truth; the highest level of knowledge (not belief) that we can attain is that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you think that Popper and Khun are wrong about their philosophy of science? Given the failure (and restart in the new atheist movement) of logical positivism, where else can we go besides the falsification principle? The most we could assume from the logical deductions you mentioned is that their is logic to this universe, but how can we know for certain that the rules of logic aren't inductions or that our observations of logic aren't rooted in an anthropocentric chauvinism?
We can know for certain that our observation our observations are objective by virtue of the fact that two or more of us can study an object or phenominon and reach the same conclusion which we can know beyond a reasonable doubt by virtue of the evidence that supports the mutually supporting data or logic.
That is how science is supposed to work, anyway. You still can't escape the problem of induction through peer review. In fact, the goal of every scientist if to figure out how to challenge everything we thought we knew about everything and give us a new paradigm.
Pragmatically speaking, yes, the peer review process does work both in theory and in practice, even though the problem of induction means it makes no sense. Sometimes everybody makes the same errors in observations.
It is the currently observed nature of the universe to reach level of ever increaseing complexity. Beginning with the sub atomic, atoms form, which allow for complex molecules which allow for life, which evolves into complex life. Life begins simple and gradually becomes more complex where man's brain is large enough to support an advanced intellect. At each level of complexity, the nature of the simpler ones do not become null and void. In deed, they still apply.
I would disagree and say that the human brain is significantly larger then that of a chimp, but size isn't the whole story. We have evolved specialized areas of the brain for specific tasks that allow us more advanced concepts of reason, and their may yet be concepts of reason we cannot yet grasp. The prefrontal lobe is where we see the greatest difference. Even now, we are discovering the genes that make our brains distinctly human.
take insted the bottle nosed dolphin, their brain to body ratio is the highest next to man and there is noevidence that they are either intellectual or anti-intellectual.
Before I expand on that point is has to be pointed out what I mean when i say intellect.
The word intellect and intelligence are not the same; and the intellect does not refer to an ability to distinguish between two perceptual objects, problem solve, imagine or remember; (con't)
1. Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. FAIL.
2. Natural rights are grounded in human nature. FAIL.
3. Human nature is a rational subtance(?) FAIL.
4. The intelligible end of the reproductive act is reproduction. ONLY BECAUSE YOU CALL IT 'THE REPRODUCTIVE ACT', and by the way, YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT. FAIL!!!!!
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
Holy crap, you sounded like CM. I mean, you usually sound similar, but this time, I had trouble believing that you weren't CM. Ok, seriously, is this Stand in Stan talking?
Bassbait 1 year ago
Im not a huge fan of homosexuality but only the act of it (mainly cause i don't understand it) but i also don't like Brittany Spears and Madoner but i don't have an unfounded hatred of people who listen to there music and i don't hate gays. This is the problem people don't understand something so they hate it or are scared of it.
angelofmalice0 1 year ago
FAGS EAT FECES
tonykeywest07 1 year ago
Well stated.
ffswtfiswrongwithyou 1 year ago
Would you mind trying that argument again without all the cursing and personal attacks? And leave the political assessments out as well. I think you do yourself a disservice when you mix rational argument with persuasive speech.
Goohuman 1 year ago
Why did this asshole have to be called Ryan?
RepublicOfVietnam 1 year ago
wow, you definitely sound like your brother
SoundwaveSkywarp 1 year ago
Stan. You are brilliant. Thank you.
commandereagle2 1 year ago
oh boy the old argument from nature
is it just me or can you justify to be for and against anything/everything if you argue (falsely) from the standpoint that every behavior in nature is automatically good and should be mimicked (because if you look hard enough you can find nearly every behavior and the opposite in one species or another or if you even just baselessly assert that one behavior is "natural" or not)
I wonder who came up with this nonsense first
DeHerg 1 year ago
What's unnatural here is that a bigot like nododon still exist in the age of the super information highway. Nododon must be a closet who's convinced himself that the devil is sending him forbidden homo-radio brain waves to tempt him into turning his back on zombie Jesus. Standinstann ftw
1mPeRcEpTiBlE 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
What people do in the privacy of their own lives, provided it does not infringe upon the rights of other people, is their own damn business. End of story.
Good job Stan!
sonicboom2007 1 year ago
Comment removed
sonicboom2007 1 year ago
Unless you are willing to suppose that the strait agenda of new orleans is to expand marti gras to the rest of the country and convince decent folk that their radical strait lifestyle is okay; you can not say the same for the people at this street festival by simply substituting the word "strait" for the word "gay".
you can call me a dumbfuck all you want, it doesn't make you less wrong.
standinstann 1 year ago
Stan, Stan, ohhhh, Stan,
If you do not know the difference between the female sexual anatomy and a male rectum, then I do believe that this conversation is futile.
Signing off,
Debra J.M. Smith
of
Informing Christians
InformingChristians 1 year ago
If your argument here is "mouth is for eating, butt is for pooping, vagina is for sexing" you'l have to watch the video again; i already addressed the falatious "natural law" BS. If we were purely instinctive beings, that would be quite true; we aren't.
standinstann 1 year ago
And, Stan,
People have a right to not want anything to do with homosexuality. If a person wants to be part of a party that rejects homosexuality, that is that person's right.
And we are all bigoted against some type of person.
You are bigoted against anti-homosexual people.
That's okay, though, Stan. Because that is your right to be bigoted against people like Ryan and me too, for that matter.
But I don't care if you have homosexual tendencies. What you do in your bed, is your business.
InformingChristians 1 year ago
I think that a person who believes that a homosexual is less than human is a bigot; i do not think that people who hate gays are less than human.
standinstann 1 year ago
I have absolutly no idea what you mean by "having anything to do with homosexuality"
If a personn wants to support segregation, racial hatred, or dehumanization of people who arent like them; you're absolutly right, they have the right to do that; what's you're point?
standinstann 1 year ago
Stan,
You said in this video that sex for pleasure is to "express love." My first thought is how is doing harmful things to another person's body, an expression of love?
Nonetheless, no matter how Ryan Sorba worded his upset with CPAC, for having allowed a homosexual group to participate, he was correct.
The GOP has put off to be the party that is against the pushing of homosexuality on the whole of society.
Okay, Stan, you're a homosexual. But why use the government to push that on others?
InformingChristians 1 year ago
To the first point, I said that when two people have sex for thir own pleasure, the pleasure of their partner, AND TO EXPRESS THE LOVE BETWEEN THE TWO, it becomes a purely romantic act.
I did not say that sex for pleasure alone is an act of love; and I did not comment on people who may be harming eachother.
to the second point; the only "agenda" on the part of gay people is to have the same rights and liberties that the rest of us have. that to me is a perfectly reasonable agenda. (con't
standinstann 1 year ago
To the third point, I'm not a homosexual, but if i were, I would be very, very, scared of any person who insisted that being gay was to forfit ones natural human rights.
standinstann 1 year ago
Yes, Stan, you said that the "end of which is to express love."
And the most talked about sexual practice of homosexual men is inserting things in each others rectum. That is very harmful to the body. When I was growing up, if someone told another to "stick it up" the person's rear end, that was not a loving thing being expressed.
I don't believe that Ryan was saying that homosexuals forfeit all of one's natural human rights, but those that pertain to heterosexual sex and the outcome of such.
InformingChristians 1 year ago
first; A purely romantic act is to express love, yes.
second; there isn't a single human right that aanyone is entitled to because of the way in which they have sex.
third, inserting a penis into a rectum is painful at first as is vaginal sex; I can't believe i even need to talk about this, but; the two are more or less equivelent in terms of bodily danger, and what's more, what difference does it make; I wouldn't outlaw S&M either
third; that's exactly what he said.
standinstann 1 year ago
lol
CUCProductions 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why do you call him an asshole? Isn't that what you are all about?
You worship assholes. You dream about assholes. You lick assholes. You fuck assholes. You suck sperm out of assholes.
Now if called him a pussy I could understand that because you hate pussy.
Get it right asshole.
See I called you an 'asshole' because I don't like assholes. That's where we shit out stinky fecal matter. Get a mirror and check it out. You might have to wait a while but pretty soon you will figure it out.
nododon 1 year ago
He's an asshole because he's bigoted, how hard is that to understand?
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He is not a bigot. That pertains to racism. He just doesn't agree with the gay agenda to recruit young men into a lifestyle that is both physically and emotionally destructive. Same sex attraction is instinctively confused behavior.
This is why people like Ryan seem radical to you. Google the following titles and see for yourself, then be sure to comment. I would appreciate your input.
Up Your Alley - 2008 zombietime
(and)
The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century
nododon 1 year ago
Bigotry pertains to hatred of a person because of a superficial difference between them and you.
I have never seen one of these imaginary recruting stations where gay people give a shit what the sexual orientation of others is; I have sen religous programs that do.
People like Sorba seem radical to me because they are denying simple scientific and social truths because of their own subjective religous views.
standinstann 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Please Stan,
I find it very difficult (I don't dare use the word hard) to envision two guys having butt sex in a romantic way at all. It is nothing more than perverted lust and is not an expression of 'love'.
I guess there could be a few exceptions butt for the most part it is a 'get your rocks off' party.
Same sex attraction is a behavioral gender identity emotional quirk and nothing more. There is no gay gene and gays develop their gay tendencies through life experiences.
nododon 1 year ago
To the first point, I'm sorry you feel that way; and I'm sorry that you choose to believe that every sexual act except for that between a married man and woman is an act of lust. Gay people, in fact, fall in love; as do non married people, and people who never intend to marry at all,
to the second point, that's a soceological generalization that you have no information in which to make.
To the third; absolutly no data supports that statement, and there is evidence to the contrary.
standinstann 1 year ago
Well that's just too bad then, goes to show how much you know about love though.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stan is an idiot and so are you. It is not instinctively normal for a male human to look at another male human's hairy asshole and say: "Oh I would love to make 'love' to you"
It's not about the act of butt sex it is about same sex attraction. You have a gender identity 'problem' and you refuse to admit it. Just like an alcoholic won't admit they have a drinking problem.
Go ahead and shread your assholes to pieces, I really don't care. Butt (lol) don't tell me it's normal.
Retards.
nododon 1 year ago
We are not a primarily instinctive species, did you even pay attention?
Seriously, you never do fail to make do a facepalm.
And retards? heh, that's rich.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 3
I pay close attention how gays try and twist information to justify their behavior. Why don't you just admit that somewhere along the path of experiences somebody (a guy) sucked another guy's cock and then felt a bit ashamed of himself because he knew it was wrong. But rather than admit his feeling of guilt he had this whole group of other cocksuckers who welcomed him into their cocksuckers club. Now he feels OK with having sucked a cock and can keep sucking cocks because it hides his shame.
nododon 1 year ago
Don't speak as if everyone feels the same as you and what you say is fact, we aren't all stuck in the dark ages, remember this.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am not 'stuck' in the dark ages Leon. Butt you are 'stuck' in a dark stinky manhole you perverted
fuck.
LOL
You will NEVER win this debate. It will NEVER go one way or the other. Give it up you stupid dipshit.
The world will never embrace the homosexual agenda. Just go fuck each other (privately) as you have in the past and everyone will get along.
nododon 1 year ago
Right, keep telling yourself that.
And again, an agenda is what you have, to supress people at no real gain, to want equal rights is a much different matter.
But alas, once again I'm leaving this "discussion" you're too busy spouting overused arguments and throwing personal insults and words that really are boiling down to bigotry and not wanting to accept that some people are different to you.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 4
LOL It's not me that's telling myself anything. It is the way it is.
You just keep telling yourself it's 'normal' and the debate will go on and on and on until everyone comes to the obvious conclusion that homosexuality should remain a private issue and to keep it that way.
nododon 1 year ago
I See so you believe if someone is different they are below you and should not be treated equally and fairly. I See people like you make me Sick to call my self Human knowing that people like you hated other people because of the skin colure or if they born with a disability I hope one day you will see beyond the hate and see the these people you hate are just people like. you no matter what they do or how they think.
NEVER judge a book by its cover
Jack101f 1 year ago
@Jack101f Hey jackoff, skin color and other disabilities have nothing to do with same sex attraction. I would treat the condition the same as I would for a kleptomaniac or a compulsive gambler. These are disorders that have to do with a persons behavior. They are not born with it, it is developed.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon the reason people who have addictions like gambling or any thing else for that mater are (sometimes forcibly ) given medical help is not because a desire too gamble is unnatural (not that good and natural are synonymous) but because there desire to do those things has become so strong that it overwhelmed there ability to chose not too there by taking away there freewill that's what an addiction is.
255ad 1 year ago
@nododon homosexuality is not an addition because homosexuals can go without sex by choice at lest as well as heterosexuals can, so for homosexuality to be considered an addiction so would heterosexuality and all sexual desire for that mater (witch I'm not saying it is because like I said you can choice not to have sex )
255ad 1 year ago
@255ad It's an obsession. Google these two sites and see for yourself:
Up Your Alley 2008 zombietime
The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century
Sorba has a problem with anal sex, I don't. I have a concern about same sex attraction being considered normal. It's not normal no matter how hard you try and defend it. It is most often a guilt complex of an experience in the experimental stage of sexuality (adolescence) that went a little too far (oral sex / anal sex).
nododon 1 year ago
@255ad Now what happens is the often younger man desires sex and is rather curious so he experiments with a friend or is molested by an older gay man. Then the individual is faced with guilt feelings unless he decides to remove his guilt by believing these fucking assholes like you who tell him 'it's normal'. So he enters the either bi-sexual or full on homosexual lifestyle to redeem himself. What he needs to do is simply realize his act was wrong, admit it, and then get on with his life.
nododon 1 year ago
@nododon
I) don't believe gay or strait child molestation or rape of any kind is "normal" or morally acceptable.
2)the only reason some one who experiments then realises there not gay would be ashamed is because they've been told it's wrong and unnaturally in the first place.
255ad 1 year ago
@nododon supose a young lesbian is raped as child but convinced her self it was OK and that she enjoyed it by entering into a number of loveless strait relationships with men because people like you convinced her any heterosexual encounter has to be more normal then her natural inclination
P.S don't say the that fact she was raped makes it different you didn't assume it made it any different for me
255ad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1/2)
@nododon "What he needs to do is simply realize his act was wrong, admit it, and then get on with his life" well it depends on the two totally different and not at all synonymous situations you presented if he was indeed raped as child yes he does in deed need to except it was wrong thing that was don too him but that would also be true of any child molested child girl or boy.
255ad 1 year ago
(2/2)
@nododon if he experimented then turned out to be strait the only reason for him too feel guilty is becase people like youconviced him it was wrong in the first place. and like I said morally a lesbian girl entering into bunch a of strait relationships convinced her natural inclination is wrong by you people, would just as bad as the reverse. no what you need too do if you experiment and get it wrong is admit you got wrong and move on with your life.
255ad 1 year ago
@nododon i wouldn't it be better if you stopped saying gay sex is abnormal in the first place and stop the guilt that way because if we shut up there'd still be a lot of naturally born gay men feeling guilty because of you
by the way consensual sexual experimentation however misguided and child rape are not synonymous
255ad 1 year ago
Jumping in here as well; the world HAS embraced the gay agenda, it's called equal rights, and equality under the law, and human moral progress.
standinstann 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Attraction is the issue, not the act. Heterosexuals can kink any way they want if they consent to it, but homosexuality is abnormal attraction to begin with. And with most gays it is a lust driven act.
Up Your Alley 2008 - zombietime
See for yourself. Guys sucking guys off in the streets, pissing on each other, jerking off out a second floor window.
That's love right?
You fucking bullshit artist. You know what it is. You just hide behind your little pretend wall of tolerance. What horseshit.
nododon 1 year ago
You didn't say that attraction was the issue; you said "a man wanting to make love to another mans anus" is unnatural, and your right; fortunatly gay men do not make love to other mens anuses they make love to other men.
Since you're now envoking attraction; I'll say that people, gay and strait alike, are attracted to all different kinds of body tipes and different kinds of people (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
There isn't a single medical or psychological journal that defines attraction between any two people as "abnormal"; one might think that a skinny person being attracted to a big person is abnormal; that does not make it so.
Second, I have never in my entire life seen oral sex being preformed in the street, people urinating on eachother; at all, or jerking off out a window; and what's more that is not a typical behavior of any people gay or strait (cont)
standinstann 1 year ago
But realize, you are not against homosexuality in order to deal with the widespread "jerking off out of windows" problem.
You are against it because something or somebody somewhere told you that it's wrong, and proceeded to convince you that gay people pee on eachother in the streets and jerk off out of windows.
standinstann 1 year ago
OK dumbfuck.
Just google this and see for yourself.
Up Your Alley 2008 - zombietime
You fucking moron.
nododon 1 year ago
Because a street festival in San Francisco is a perfectly reasonable sampling of every single gay person , group, and community in the country.
yeeeaaaaah.
Have you ever seen girls gone wild? Because that is obviously a perfect sampling of all heterosexual female collage students everywhere in the world.
Have you ever seen Marti Gras? Because that is obviously a perfect sampling of every heterosexual person, and community in the country. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
Girls Gone Wild and Mardi Gras is a party for normal sexual entertainment.
Up Your Alley in S.F. is a male dick sucking, hairy ass fucking, masturbating and sperm shooting out a second floor window, toy bone up the ass pissing festival.... And it is for same sex attraction.
Big difference fuck brain.
nododon 1 year ago
"A party for 'normal sexual entertainment'"
So your beef with the Sf street festival is not that public sex acts are being preformed; it's that they're being preformed by gay men.
When a girl is jerking off a guy at marti gras, or flashing the crowd, or people are fucking in public, that's 'normal sexual entertainment',
Puting aside the fact that sex for purposes of entertainment is what you said your were aginst at the start of this thing (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
You still have to explain to me why I shouldn't be worried that the people at marti gras are going to push their radical strait agenda on my children, and try to make them think that its okay for a girl to jerk off a guy in public.
i don't want that kind of heterosexual lust pushed on my kids. i want the straits out of our schools, out of our public parks, and in the privacy of their own homes where their perversion belongs!
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
You literraly just said that "Sexual Entertainment' is okay as long as its strait people having public sex for entertainment; well i don't want you pushing your heterosexuality on me or my kids.
The answer to the above is of course that marti gras is marti gras, and every day life is everyday life.
Again, you can call me whatever you want, it doesn't make you less wrong, and it doesn't make you less inconsistant.
standinstann 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A girl jerking off a guy in the middle of the street should be illegal even if the act is a normal one. Any homosexual act is abnormal and should be illegal in public. Sex for entertainment is fine as long as it is heterosexual entertainment. Sexual acts of any kind straight or gay, in public, should be illegal. Gays can go in private and tear their assholes apart for all I care, just don't do it in public. And don't claim it is normal either. Same sex attraction is abnormal. Get it?
nododon 1 year ago
If all public sexual activity is wrong, then both marti gras and the Sf street festival are examples of something that needs to be corrected. You can not single out the SF festival.
this is a totally seperate issue from homosexuality.
But that's not what you saidl you used the sf festival as a symbol of "the gay lifestyle" and then denounced it for it's being public sex along with marti gras.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
All you need to say here is "I don't like gays and I don't like the thought of gay sex"
To which I would say, then don't think about it, don't look at gay pornography, don't go to that link you sent me, and move on with your life.
standinstann 1 year ago
One last thing, you just said that sex for entertainment is fine as long as its strait people having the sex; but at the same time you accused gay sex of being a purely lustful act. Sex for entertainment alone is a purely lustful act weather or not its gay people having it.
I don't mean to pick on you, but that is just totaly inconsistant.
standinstann 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No Stan, it's the same issue because it portrays the abnormal relationship that gays engage in. Their attraction is a perversion of normal feeling that people should have for one another. Men should find women attractive and women should find men attractive. Gays are confused and have feelings that come from a gender identification problem they experienced in life. Men and women who engage in casual sexual activity are just carelessly playing with their normal instincts.
nododon 1 year ago
Again, I"m sorry you feel that way, no data backs that up.
On this issue, you are living in your own private reality; and don't take my word for it, read some psychological literature on the subject.
standinstann 1 year ago
Oh shut the fuck up you tool... and read a book. You're spouting on about things for which you have no basis and no logic. Be gone.
urgrad03 1 year ago 6
And the above comment is @ nododon, not standinstann... great argument Stan!
urgrad03 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OK cocksucker, whatever you say.
nododon 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And the above comment is @ both urgrad03 and standistann
nododon 1 year ago
You are saying that is abnormal for a person to be attracted to the same sex yet gays have been a round ever since the dawn of man and even in chimps homosexuality has been observed.
A just to ask what has gays ever done to you?
Nothing then keep your insensitive comments to your self pleas
Jack101f 1 year ago
My comment above is to @ nododon
Jack101f 1 year ago
Had to jump in here as well; a part of me can't believe that we need to have this conversation, but homosexuals arent the only people who practice oral sex; and I don't hear women who do so being refered to as "cocksuckers"
what you are doing here is called projection; these people are not ashamed of who they are, and are only ashamed of YOU for constantly discussin what they and every other human being on the planet does in their bedroom. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
For a person who constantly accuses homosexuals of subjecting people to their "lifestyle" I find it crass that you discuss in detail their so called "life style" exclusively.
Secondly; to your comment that homosexuality being "normal" is something that we tell our selves; The revelation that homosexuality is indeed normak (IE; not a mental disorder) was brought to us by the psychological community; and now the community of geneticists. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
And the reason that you are aobut to say that the entire scientific community is engaged in a liberal conspiracy to make homosexuality seem okay; is that you have to.
Because whatever else may be said about you, you at least have sense and decency enough to NOt believe that a loving God would create people a certain way, and make that way an intrinsic evil.
standinstann 1 year ago
Why do you think some people feel guilty?
BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!! You are saying for them to hate them self for no reason and even though they know there is nothing wrong with what they are doing they know if they tell others they might have the same close minded view as you.
So stop!! The hate speech
Jack101f 1 year ago
My comment above is to @ nododon
Jack101f 1 year ago
Just had to jump in here;
Genetalia is not a person; we do not make love to assholes or vaginas, we make love to people, who happen to have those parts.
You have, in your last comment, LITTERALLY defined same sex attraction as "attraction to a mans anus" and subsequently defined heterosexuality as "attraction to a womans vagina or a mans penis."
this coming from a person who refers to others as being "idiots" (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
I don't know if you're a religous homophobe, or just a macho homophobe, but in either case, I find it hard not to repeet that we make love to PEOPLE not parts; and we do this (gay and strait) in a variety of ways, and through a variety of "ports".
It is clear and obvious to me that if you are not indeed a bigot, the only other reason that you could possibly define love making this way is to not know anything whatsoever about human relationships.
standinstann 1 year ago
@nododon tell that to my brother with a straight face.
BatOtaku13 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No problem.
nododon 1 year ago
Wanting equal rights is not an agenda, wanting to surpress gay people at no real gain is.
Also read Stan's comment for a debunk your bigot comment.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 4
@nododon wow, you're a fag.
grimshawr 1 year ago 2
Stan, I really don't think you needed to show an image of two naked men embracing, especially for so long.
People who want to hear your reasoning for why Sorba is wrong do not necessarily find such imagery unobjectionable.
Besides, I really have to worry why you would have such an image to use in your video.
marscaleb 1 year ago
With all due respect i don't really care what some people find objectionable or unobjectionable; two presumably naked men (it was after all mostly a picture of their heads and torsos) is unobjectionable to me, and at least as unobjectionable as a picture of a man and a woman embracing.
I used such an immage in my video to emphisize the word "love".
standinstann 1 year ago
Yeah but man, I'm watching this video at school. People can see what's on my monitor.
They can't see the context of an honest intellectual discussion, they can only see two naked dudes.
marscaleb 1 year ago
i can't really control that though.
standinstann 1 year ago
When you read that quote of his about "natural rights" I could not help but think of how that same argument justifies rapists, child molesters, and wife beaters.
How can you say something like that without even thinking about what it means?
marscaleb 1 year ago
A couple of days ago, I had never heard of this idiot. I watched his yelling match, and realized whatever career he was embarking on, is basically over now. He couldnt even help himself, his hatred of gay and lesbians came running on out there. Surprised he didnt say N***** why he was at it. It wouldnt have changed much, he's an idiot, and will always be an idiot.
AvatarOfAvatar 1 year ago
They won't change Reps anymore than African-Americans (who are mostly socially conservative) will change Dems social policy.
Joekitty001 1 year ago
The difference now is that this guy got booed in a room with people who came to hear Ann Coulter.
In the 80's anti-gay bigotry was much more vociferous and mainstream. Fear of AIDS was part of it, and used as a rationalization.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
that's a good point
standinstann 1 year ago
@charlesvan13 No, the people in that room came to hear Ron Paul, not Ann Coulter.
JasonDelWraa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I got mixed up as to which group was the pro-gay guys.
There is YAF (Young Americans for Freedom)
They are the old school Party Loyal McCain RINO Republican dupes.
There is YAL (Young Americans for Liberty)
They are the newer more libertarian Ron Paul
supporters of the Constitution.
And then there are these dick sucking ass fuckers called "Students for Liberty" who are nothing more than a front for the homosexual agenda.
OK, I get it.
nododon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I came home to my dorm one night, and witnessed my MALE roommate having sloppy wet and drippy anal sex with this Ryan Sorbet guy. It was disgusting!
JustinU1984 1 year ago
I for one am proud that the country is moving slowly to a standing where hatred for homosexuality is becoming a minority.
terydude101 1 year ago 4
I would likewise take pride were it not that we are forsaking one extreme for the other. I do not think it is right to be hateful towards homosexuality, but our society is moving to embrace it in a completely wrong fashion.
If I were to say that I think homosexuality is unhealthy, I would be attacked and hated by people claiming to support tolerance and "understanding."
What good does it do us to exchange one bigotry for another?
marscaleb 1 year ago
@marscaleb
ahh, but it is one thing to say homosexuality is unhealthy (provided you have proof), rather than blatantly hating/discriminating those who chose to live their lives in the way they chose.
terydude101 1 year ago
@terydude101
You're missing my point.
Look, I posted a comment that some people who want to hear what Stan had to say may not want see that image of two men he put in his video. That only very very loosely implies a non-pro-gay standpoint. And yet I receive poor comment points for it.
I cannot make even neutral statements without being spurned in most crowds. How is that not "blatantly hating/discriminating those who chose to live their lives in the way they chose?"
marscaleb 1 year ago
Wow... People like that scare me too...
Its so scary when you see people like this preach such words of hate. Not only are these bad people promoteing intalerents, but are scareing some good decent people from being themselves....
Everyone should have the right to be who they want to be, as long as they don't stop others...(with actions OR words alike)
hioih 1 year ago
This is one of the reasons I subscribe to you. You hit the nail on the head as always.
Neocons like Ryan Sorba and Rush Limbaugh need to be purged from the Republican party if it is to survive. We cannot allow it to be hijacked by fringe-nuts and hatemongerors!
r3v3ng3ofthef4113n 1 year ago
Great video Stan, welcome back.
o2theh 1 year ago
That last picture of the Tea Party activists(?) reminded me of a tragedy that occurred earlier this week. I live in Austin TX, and I drove by the Echelon IRS building Thursday morning, while it was still in flames. What scared me the most wasn't that it happened, it was that not many people in polls thought of it as a terrorist attack, but rather Joe Stack expressing his freedom of speech. When people confuse terrorism with patriotism, that scares the shit out of me.
Killermike2178 1 year ago
Except the guy that crashed into the IRS building wasn't a tea partier. Joseph Andrew Stack's manifesto contains criticisms of the government for not getting healthcare passed and ends with a stab at capitalism and praise of communism. Anyone who tells you that this guy was a "crazy right-winger" is misinforming you.
mfdriggs84 1 year ago
I am scared.
hencharlson 1 year ago
I honestly don't understand why so many conservatives use the bible as justification of their homophobic agenda's, you know the bible also says it's ok to sell your daughter into slavery among other unscrupulous things. I mean come on people i thought we learned this in the 60's everyone deserves rights.
Firelordzerien 1 year ago
I'm just throwing out there that I haven't seen this sorba speech. I've had a case brief to write (law school, lol) and missed pretty much all the news, plus olympics this week.
Usually I would be in the know about this sort of thing. By no means am I defending Ryan Sorba, since I don't know exactly what he said. I'm just tackling some of what you said, and some of what I've read in the comments here.
SeventhHanyou 1 year ago
(continued) I have an intense distaste for excessive regulation, be it environment-related, health-related, education-related, or moral-related. Virtue cannot be compelled by human institutions.
That said, I have an equally strong distaste for those who make the straw man argument that those against homosexual acts necessarily hate homosexuals. Not saying you've done that, but I do understand the frustration many neoconservatives feel on the issue.
I am still no neocon. Nor am I a bigot.
SeventhHanyou 1 year ago
Natural law and natural rights are conflated. At the very least, they have been conflated in our nation's founding documents, and the intersection of the two informed them.
And (I know I'll get thumbs down for this) I happen to believe homosexual acts are immoral. I believe a number of things are immoral, and it does not keep me from acknowledging the existence of the right to do what is wrong, so long as it is non-aggressive.
Obviously, I have a problem with the Republican party. (cont)
SeventhHanyou 1 year ago
OK, Stan. I think you might want to go into a whole other video explaining that last part. WHO scares the shit out of you?
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
I think what he's understandably worried about is that CPAC being infiltrated is the first step down the road to controlling speech by the OTHER prong. Now, I don't care if gays want to be gays, but I DO care about what some people are going to want us to say. That ultimately, whether liberal or conservative, you'll be walking on eggshells if you criticize homosexuality. Does anybody ever say "You're entitled to your own opinion" half as much as "Stop hate speech" anymore? Hello, speech police!
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
you're great
AwesomeCoasters 1 year ago
One thing though, you may wish to change this video from Music to News and Politics ^^;
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago 2
Oh: I don't realise it was under a catagory :P willl do, ty
standinstann 1 year ago
Also, he must hate contraception, couples that don't want children, people who are sterile or infertal, etc.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
exactly; if a person gets married and a year later befomes infertile; holy shit, better not ever have sex again! *facepalm*
standinstann 1 year ago
Well that's essentially what he's saying, whether he realises it or not.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
exactly, and the fact of the matter is; he doesn't care about people who use birth controll (that I know of) he doesn't want the age of consent lowered to 10 or 11, he doesn't care about natural laws or natural rights; he just hates gays, and has looked for anything that might seem to justify that hatred.
standinstann 1 year ago
Exactly, which is true for alot of these idiots.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
I despise nationalists, conservatives, religious bigots and all others who hate gay people. Homosexuality is natrual, these dogmas and religion are man made.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
Being a nationalist doesn't automatically mean that you hate gay people. That is not in it's definition, and saying that it is is stereotyping, the same stereotyping that you clearly hate.
CCowell125 1 year ago
As I told you on Twitter, I have not met ONE nationalist that didn't wish to see all gay people burned at the stake, or at the very least arrested.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
@LeonSKennedy828
Then you must not get out much.
marscaleb 1 year ago
Right, and you are who, exactly?
(My point with that statement is you don't know me so therefore can't comment on how often I go out =P)
I've seen alot of nationalists in my time, each one a hateful piece of shit that didn't deserve to breath, let alone state a political opinion.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
So you mean to say that exclusively of nationalists? The context you have supplied tends to imply that you are saying this of conservatives and "religious bigots." In those terms I am saying that you would have to have never met anyone for your statement to be true.
But if you mean that exclusively of "nationalists" then your statement may be true, as basically no one prefers to call themselves one.
Regardless, you did imply that all conservatives want to horrifically murder homosexuals.
marscaleb 1 year ago
I dunno, alot of BNP (British National Party, or Nazi Party as I like to call them) members are quite proud of it for some odd reason.
Alot of religious people ARE bigots to gay people though, but of course I know not all religious people are like that. (Unfortunatley alot do seem to be though)
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
Comment removed
CrimsonStarProducion 1 year ago
people like you give me the hope in humanity back
Klamev 1 year ago 3
i knew there was a reason i liked you stan
ginsengaddict 1 year ago 2
none of those societies you mentioned are; 1, governments, or 2; intellectual to any degree.
They are certainly hirarchies, but they are not governments in any sense other than the most loose definition. They are certainly not political governments.
standinstann 1 year ago
I'm not sure how vague that was, i was pretty specific, but; the reason to think that our genetic ancestors did not possess a degree of intellect is that they did not create works of art or form political governments.
standinstann 1 year ago
disagree strongly that human relationships are intellectual. seems to me that we follow our urges and then (some of us) rationalise them as choices. sorba doesn't recognise that urges get shaped in childhood and maybe before you're born and are then largely immutable. problem seems to be a lot of right wing nuts have forgotten jesus' message about acceptance
cuntscab555 1 year ago
By intellect, i do not mean "intelligence, ability to abstract, or ability to problem solve"
I mean the ability to conceptualize; that is to understand a certain kind or class of thing, and to know what that thing is like even when there is no perceptual example present or possible.
standinstann 1 year ago
Luckily the fact that he got booed off stage is a pretty good sign that he's not a mainstream voice.
SLagonia 1 year ago
great video Stan. not that i don't like your reviews (they are great !) but i would also be happy if you would continue to make videos with topics like that or similar ones.
blues260 1 year ago
Yes!!! Thank you Stan
JamesFnQuinn 1 year ago
Great video Stan!
Gundo420hunley 1 year ago
I'm glad you're talking about this. Not living in America, I'd never heard of Sorba 'til now, but similar kinds of things happen all over the place.
In Germany, no one enjoys folk music because they're now too associated with Nazi propaganda, despite the lyrics being politically neutral. In the UK, no one puts the Union Jack (that British flag) on a flagpole because that implies membership of the BNP (extremist right party). So sad.
Redrally 1 year ago
Kinda off topic here... but Hugh Hefner (according to his autobiography) had a gay sex experience in the 70's. If a guy like that can do it...
YOURGODISNOWHERE 1 year ago
Everything we, as humans, do is biological. Sex is biologocial but the ffects of romance etc. are just as biological and instictual. What else could it be?
LightVSDarkness64 1 year ago
emotional and intellectual; that btw is not limited to romance; man is in fact the only intellectual animakl, the only artistic animal, the only political animal, the only religious animal, etc.
standinstann 1 year ago
I do believe that all of those things, on some level were caused through biological progress, eg. we are political to create order etc.
LightVSDarkness64 1 year ago
Emotion and intellect has a biological origin and basis. Humanity is novel in many ways, but those novelties stem from our unique biology (well, our biology and culture, but the capacity for culture is directly enabled by our biology).
Following Sorba's line of argument (that natural rights stem from biology), any human behavior could be regarded as biological/natural and therefore no behavior implies a forfeiture of natural rights.
Quinstol 1 year ago
That is; it can always be traced to either the teabaggers or the people who suck up to them. and it's the sucking up that worries me. I don't think that Republicans are intrinsically racist, but when the point is made that President Obama's parents were married, and Scott Brown utters the words "I don't know about that", what other conclusion can one draw?
WHY doesn't Scott brown believe that Obama's parents were married? because he's black? That is the only conclusion that I can draw.
standinstann 1 year ago
More of us know who's trying to infiltrate us than you give us credit for. 4 weeks ago, I might have been averse to negative comments about Palin. But she pretty much lost whatever remaining mystique she had when she joined Fox News. And we did heckle Rick "Bilderberg" Perry when he got on the capitol steps at our July 4 Tea Party. Our focus is Constitutional law and it's preservation. Perhaps I don't speak for all the revolutionaries, but my circle is even putting guys like Beck to task.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
I would only disagree with the point that the intellect is not biological. Since the intellect is an emergent phenomena of the brain, a biological object, the intellect is necessarily biological by extension. If anybody is going to make an argument for morality from nature that doesn't involve evolved instincts of morality, all things are permissible by nature alone. Of course, I believe that morals are inherent to nature and are discovered through the evolutionary process.
FlowCell 1 year ago
Why do you say that the intellect is an emergent phenomena of the brain? the brain opperates from particulars; this thing or that, this chair or that. The intellect opperates from universals; IE; "That which applies to ALL chairs, ALL dogs, ALL humans, ALL people; etc.
standinstann 1 year ago
That's a very Socratic and, I think, obsolete paradigm. The brain is a physical object with specific functions. One of those functions is the intellect. When the neurones of the brain interact, the intellect emerges from that organisation.
If Descartes is right and we think, therefore we are, and thinking is a product of firring neurons, then a person is a verb, not a noun. Of course, if e=Mc^2 is true, nouns and verbs are the same thing. But if that's true, then Descartes is wrong.
FlowCell 1 year ago
If nouns and verbs are one and then same I still exist, even when I'm not thinking. I think because I am. Anyway, I'm getting off track.
Because the brain is foundational to the intellect, the intellect has a biological nature. As evidence, your intellect is altered according to mood, sleeping patters and quality, as well as the administration of drugs. Your intellect could even be shut down through anesthesia. Does my biological paradigm make sense to you?
FlowCell 1 year ago
First of all, it isn't Socratic at all; Platonists thought that concepts existed in heaven; I'm saying that our ability to comprehend universals can not be a function of the brain which opperates from particulars.
Your claim that the intellect is a function of the brain is entirely unproven, unfounded, and untested.
That is; that the brain its self can opperate from universals has yet to be determined, and I suspect, never will be as the intellect is an immaterial organ. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
secondly, I don't see what descartes has to do with anything.
Third, you're right to say that "the brain is foundational to the intellect in a sense; the brain is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for intellectual thought.
standinstann 1 year ago
That part about descartes was just me rambling on a rabbit trail.
Explain how the brain is not sufficient to intellectual thought.
FlowCell 1 year ago
fair enough.
You and I can not immagine a triangle, any triangle we immagine will always be of some shape size and color; in order to THINK triangle (that is triangularity) we don't use our brains; that is; we don't opperate from particulars; we are not thinking of a perceptually present object; we are thinking of a non perceptual, non present; idea; which is not how the brain as such opperates.
standinstann 1 year ago
The brain operates on abstract concepts like "perfect" triangles all the time. Just because you use a particular brain does not mean you are incapable of thinking about a universal. Universals are hardwired into us, polygeneticly. Geometric shapes and colors can be seen in their "perfect" forms during psychedelic trips. If mathematically perfect shapes and colors can exist in a computer, why can't they exist in a vastly more complex brain? If you are thinking, you are using your brain.
FlowCell 1 year ago
An abstraction is the ability to discriminate between two perceptual objects; a concept is the ability to comprehend that which there is no perceptual example of.
If I am percieving I am using my brain; if I am thinking I am using my intellect. Without my brain i can no think at all, but i don't think with it.
standinstann 1 year ago
The last sentence appears to be a self contradiction. If you can't think without your brain, how can you possibly not think without it?
I think what you are trying to describe is analogous to a "virtual machine" where a computer exists within a computer as pure software. No matter what, the "true" computer will always be used when the virtual one functions. The intellect might be where the thinking happens, but the brain is where the intellect happens. It is nested in biology.
FlowCell 1 year ago
necessary but not sufficient is the opperative phraze. Without our brains we couldn't think at all, but we don't think with them. Without our opperating systems we couldn't surf the net at all but we don't surf with them; etc.
The brain is the organ of sense, memory and immagination; none of which are conceptual.
standinstann 1 year ago
So you deny that concepts can exist as the neurological activity of the brain?
You seem to have conflicting ideas because you seem to acknowledge some form of nested hierarchy by also indicate that the brain and intellect are necessarily discreet. The nature of more basal layers of the hierarchy still apply to the higher level ones.
FlowCell 1 year ago
Yes; I deny that concepts exist as nurological activity of the brain; there either exists a sameness between certain classes or kinds of things or not; if it does not; then all of science and philosophy must be dismisses as a figment of our imaginations.
;
standinstann 1 year ago
Well, some philosophers have made the point that the "real" world is inherently unknowable. Given the necessity of neopragmatism and the failure of philosophy to find the principle of ultimate truth, and the likely failure of science to do the same, I can see why all that we know could be fiction and, indeed it may very well be. I don't believe humans have the ability to know the ultimate truth, so we pragmatically accept the best possible understanding we can have knowing it could be wrong.
FlowCell 1 year ago
those philosophers were wrong. the only things that we can know with absolute certinly are those things the oppositte of which are impossible (there can be no odd 2's, no three sided squares, etc.) Everything else we know; NOT with varying levels of belief, as descarts thoght, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
In that sense I agree with you, we can not know absolute truth; the highest level of knowledge (not belief) that we can attain is that beyond a reasonable doubt.
standinstann 1 year ago
Do you think that Popper and Khun are wrong about their philosophy of science? Given the failure (and restart in the new atheist movement) of logical positivism, where else can we go besides the falsification principle? The most we could assume from the logical deductions you mentioned is that their is logic to this universe, but how can we know for certain that the rules of logic aren't inductions or that our observations of logic aren't rooted in an anthropocentric chauvinism?
FlowCell 1 year ago
We can know for certain that our observation our observations are objective by virtue of the fact that two or more of us can study an object or phenominon and reach the same conclusion which we can know beyond a reasonable doubt by virtue of the evidence that supports the mutually supporting data or logic.
standinstann 1 year ago
That is how science is supposed to work, anyway. You still can't escape the problem of induction through peer review. In fact, the goal of every scientist if to figure out how to challenge everything we thought we knew about everything and give us a new paradigm.
Pragmatically speaking, yes, the peer review process does work both in theory and in practice, even though the problem of induction means it makes no sense. Sometimes everybody makes the same errors in observations.
FlowCell 1 year ago
I don't disagree on any particular point.
standinstann 1 year ago
It is the currently observed nature of the universe to reach level of ever increaseing complexity. Beginning with the sub atomic, atoms form, which allow for complex molecules which allow for life, which evolves into complex life. Life begins simple and gradually becomes more complex where man's brain is large enough to support an advanced intellect. At each level of complexity, the nature of the simpler ones do not become null and void. In deed, they still apply.
FlowCell 1 year ago
the difference between concept and percept is not one of simplicity oand complexity; it is one of ability and compleet lack of ability.
The size and complexity of our brains is not that much different from those of the great apes; yet we can form concepts and they can not.
standinstann 1 year ago
I would disagree and say that the human brain is significantly larger then that of a chimp, but size isn't the whole story. We have evolved specialized areas of the brain for specific tasks that allow us more advanced concepts of reason, and their may yet be concepts of reason we cannot yet grasp. The prefrontal lobe is where we see the greatest difference. Even now, we are discovering the genes that make our brains distinctly human.
Human brain: 3lb.
Chimp brain: 14oz.
Dog brain: 2.5oz.
FlowCell 1 year ago
take insted the bottle nosed dolphin, their brain to body ratio is the highest next to man and there is noevidence that they are either intellectual or anti-intellectual.
Before I expand on that point is has to be pointed out what I mean when i say intellect.
The word intellect and intelligence are not the same; and the intellect does not refer to an ability to distinguish between two perceptual objects, problem solve, imagine or remember; (con't)