text:
On The Gay Thing . . ., (New thread on a subject that came up in a different topic) |
Oct 22 2009, 12:45 PM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
This topic arose as a result of my having chided Quest a bit for having employed "gayness" to describe "the individuals involved in the globalization, military aspect of 911" in this thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18236 As an out gay man I took some offense to it but it wasn't that big a deal. Still, it opened up the subject, one I've considered bringing to this forum for some time but never felt it was appropriate. After tnemelckram's reply in that thread (which I will quote in full below before replying to it), I decided this might be a good opportunity to open up this discussion. I'm putting it in "chill" because, for me, it is the kind of discussion you might have with some friends you've known for a long time while seated around a table at a bar. Everyone is welcome to listen or toss their 2¢ in but not everyone may be comfortable with it.
First, though, tnemelckram's post: On the gay thing . . . I think I understand what Quest was trying to do but he got carried away. Painter rightly pointed that out. Quest did the right thing in response to Painter's concerns. The military guys who fostered public fear and otherwise encouraged or enabled our botched response to 911 (among them, some likely perps) tend to be macho, conservative types steeped in an authoritarian credo. Quest's label attacks the way they perceive their manhood, which they highly value, so it carries some sting. Given that what they did ran counter to their serious responsibilities to us, I don't think that any attack on them is too strong. So it seems Quest wanted to take a good swipe at them in this fashion. He is keeping "drama queen" for these clowns, which I think is accurate, more than enough by itself to make his point, and otherwise appropriate. Look at how they tried to drum up militarism and an exalted place for themselves and the so called "Commander In Chief" in the public eye after 911, while over-reacting to criticism to the point of calling their critics "traitors". Drama Queens indeed! And up till now the term only seemed to apply to Brent Favre! Quest's point is well made without adding "gay". Quest personally doesn't seem to give the word an inherently negative meaning like that for "N----r". He used it because the military guys would think it is negative, especially when applied to them. GBLT people are in the midst of a struggle for equal social acceptance and legal rights. Black people might be near the end of their similar struggle. Unlike "N----r", "gay" has many uses with positive connotations, but it can also be used in a derogatory way. In both cases, words that are inherently negative or used negatively undermine the drive for social acceptance, so there is good reason for the sensitivity. But I found that one issue needed perspective. I have several gay friends and socialize with others fairly often. Most of them (including the friends) have made The Big Suggestion in one form or another. I say I'm flattered but unfortunately hetero. Their response eventually boils down to how can you be sure until you try? My answer is that if they are certain of their sexual orientation and confident and comfortable with it, then I am equally sure that I only like the girls. Every sexual thought I ever had and have involves one woman and/or another; also, while men are the same as me, women are different, and I prefer different. Now comes the big insight - even though they're gay, they're still guys! Of course they are inclined make a try at you! They can't help it, just like I can't help trying to do the same with women! So we're still basically the same. With this understanding, there is nothing offensive about it - I often used the "how can you find out unless you try" line (or argument) on women during mating dances - it's nice that somebody likes you. The episode almost always ends well with some good male-oriented jokes because after all your both still guys. Good insight, tnemelckram. Even though I'm gay, indeed, I still am a guy and although I'll be 62 years old soon, my libido isn't much different than it was at 22. That's not a brag, its just the honest truth. I grew up gay in the rural Midwest in the 1950s/60s at a time when "gay" meant happy. I don't remember when I first heard "gay" used to reference homosexuality but it probably wasn't until my first year of college in Chicago, 1966/67. This was also when I began to meet and hang out with other gay men. However, to be clear, that was not when I became sexually active -- that had begun from a very early age. I'd known I was sexually attracted to other guys from probably around age six but, being that young, my understanding of what that meant was still very unclear. I grew up on a farm just outside a very small rural town so it wasn't like I was completely isolated. As soon as we could ride our bikes, many of us boys in approximately the same age group, started palling around with one another. In fact, the pond on my dad's farm was only a short walk down the railroad tracks from the town and it was the local 'swimming hole' for all us kids during the summer (and ice skating rink in the winter). None of us ever bothered with swimming suits as we weren't shy and it was completely private. My sexual experiences with other boys were very tame early on but the point is they happened and I don't think any of us thought too much about it. There was an element of 'guilt' and 'shame' in the sense that we knew our 'playing around' wasn't to be talked about, especially w/ the 'rents. I think the point at which it began to 'sink in' that I was fundamentally different from the other guys happened around age 11 or 12. I remember it quite vividly. A group of three or four of us were sitting on the front porch of the country store (probably drinking soda or eating pop-cicles). One of the boys had somehow procured a "girly magazine" with naked ladies in it and although we were all joking and kidding around while furtively looking at it, I was aware that 1) they were getting aroused by looking at the pictures, 2) I was not and 3) the fact that I was not needed to be kept a secret. I knew this because, even though "gay" wasn't a term I was familiar with, "queer" and "faggot" (among others) were words known to me. I understood that having this label hung on you would lead to a lot of trouble. In my still developing pre-teen brain all this didn't make a lot of sense but at that moment I began to understand something that I hadn't before. I was "different". While other guys might be willing to have some fun with another guy, what they really wanted to do was with girls. As I grew into a teenager this increasing awareness created in me a kind of isolation that, to be honest, I've never fully overcome. This is one of the reasons I'm interested in discussing this topic, especially in a forum that (by all appearances at least) is populated by heterosexuals. (Bill, AKA Oceans Flow, AKA Griz, who passed away earlier this year, was the only other member of this forum who was openly gay.) For me, growing up "gay" in that environment at that time meant learning to be very very careful. I felt there was something seriously wrong with me and I had no idea that my feelings were shared by a significant minority of the population -- that, indeed, there was a whole sub-culture or "gay" people. Where I had been a relatively out-going, gregarious and happy-go-lucky kid, as a teenager I became withdrawn, sullen, and developed a 'loner' persona. This wasn't too difficult as I was smart, perceptive and had a vivid imagination. But by the time I was 14 or 15 I had become increasingly depressed and, to be honest, somewhat suicidal. The outlook for the future from my POV was pretty grim. I knew I wasn't interested in girls and I also knew I was going to be expected to start dating and all the rest of it, including wife and kids. That TOTALLY freaked me out. I also had no one I could talk to about what was going on inside me, not that I'm sure I would have known how to, even if there had been. To make matters worse, beyond my sexual attraction to some of the guys around me, I was also developing emotional ones. I had a very bad crush on one of my classmates who I'd known all my life. I fell in love with him one early evening while going for a walk with him in the woods. It literally struck me like a bolt of lightening. This was during a Boy Scout outing and we were off away from the other boys just walking along talking about I don't know what and he stopped, looked around and said (speaking of the woods, fields, sky), "Isn't this beautiful? When I grow up, I want to own some land like this." I had never before in my life heard another boy talk about beauty, never before heard another boy just spontaneously express something so wonderful and intimate. As beautiful as the world around us was, to me HE was the most beautiful thing in it. Although I could openly agree with his sentiment, what I could NOT do was tell him how hearing it made me feel about him. We were already friends but what I wanted at that moment was something much more -- a completely different kind of relationship -- and, yes, one that included sexual intimacy. It was also clear to me that that was not going to happen. Not long after this my parents began spending their winters in Florida (they were in their 40s when I was born), taking me with them, enrolling me in a high school over a thousand miles away from where I'd grown up. This was a good thing for me on a lot of levels. For one thing, it gave me a further excuse to remain a "loner," and got me out of the rather limited world I'd been growing up in. This high school was HUGE by comparison with the small country school I had attended. In the spring/summer my parents and I returned to the farm -- thus my social life was split -- and in a lot of ways this worked well for me. I did have a girl friend in high school as this was expected and, truth be told, I did like her a lot -- as a friend. We even made out on several occasions in high school and I discovered that the plumbing works regardless of the gender. Later on in our Freshman year in college (she went to a private school north of Chicago) in her dorm room, we would happily shed our virginity with one another. That I was also meeting and having sex with other guys wasn't something I'd felt brave enough to tell her yet but I'd already indicated, and she'd fairly well accepted, that I was attracted to other guys. After all, this was the late 1960s when experimentation in all kinds of directions were not uncommon and social attitudes were beginning to change. For me, though, things were never simple or easy. Although I knew I was gay, I wasn't really comfortable with it. I enjoyed the sex, no doubt about that, but there was also this burgeoning "cultural identity" thing I had to deal with that just didn't sit well with me. I had no problem identifying as a "hippie" -- rock and roll, pot, LSD, political awareness -- at age 19 I was quite immersed in all that. But the "gay" scene (although there was some overlap) was different. To be honest, I didn't like most gay men I met. To me they often seemed catty, bitchy, cliquish and, fundamentally, insecure. Not all, of course, but a lot. Consequently (and this was a real headache) I most often found myself attracted to other straight guys! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) In fact, the early 1970s found me living with a bisexual guy (we'd been class mates in college) and his woman friend who he eventually married. Three-ways? Yep -- and not only that -- but I won't go into detail. Suffice it to say although I was having some fun I was far from comfortable with myself. I moved to California in 1973 and within a rather short period of time met and fell in love with an extraordinarily good looking woman three years younger than myself. This is the part of my story that often confuses my friends, both gay and straight. You did what?? Yes, and we ended up living together for 10 years and are still the best of friends. The Bay Area had gone through a lot of social changes in the years just prior to my moving here, so much so that being "gay" wasn't much of a big deal to anyone. So, I had no problem being "out". But I still had this problem relating to "the gay community" or "gay scene." I just didn't like it. I didn't keep my sexual preference hidden from any of my friends so when she and I met I was pretty up front about it. That we subsequently began to fall in love was kind of confusing for both of us but it was also undeniable. Although we talked about it, we never married (I was actually more open to this possibility than she was). Neither of us particularly wanted children (again, I was probably more open to that than she). Since she was a VERY sexual young woman and I was certain I wasn't going to meet all her sexual needs, we agreed to have an "open" relationship. For me, the way that worked is that I became monogamous with her (by my choice) because otherwise it would have just been too confusing. We agreed that whatever we did we'd not keep it a secret from the other and she did have a few 'affairs' outside our relationship -- all of them emotionally unsatisfactory for her. All during this time I continued to identify (when asked) as "gay." I tried wearing the "bisexual" hat for a while but I knew it wasn't right. I was sexually attracted to men and although I could be sexual with a woman and even enjoy it, it was rare to find myself attracted to a woman and I never fantasized about them. It wasn't until after the AIDS crisis that all this began to change. (Had I not kept myself monogamous in the preceding years, I very well might have been an AIDS victim.) What changed wasn't "me" so much as the "gay culture" around me. Gay culture suddenly had to deal with some truly significant issues -- such as death and dying and the meaning of relationships. I began attending group sessions with other gay and bisexual men who were, or had been, in relationships with women. Some of them even married with kids. That was a real eye-opener. Through this I also began to meet other gay men and to see that things were changing. It wasn't all just about sex any more -- it was about men trying to understand themselves and their sexuality and it was about the possibility of building lasting relationships in a world that was (especially outside the SF Bay Area at that time) mostly ignorant of and hostile toward such relationships. It became clear to me then that I needed to redefine my relationship with my female partner. She wasn't very happy about it but after the initial rage we worked through it. We're now like close brother and sister. A few years later I met and fell in love with a man, David, with whom I lived for 7 years before his untimely death due to a brain tumor. Prior to his death we participated in a "gay couples group" that met once every three weeks for six years. Within that, there was a core group of five gay couples that not only remained together all during that time but really worked at coming to understand the complexities of male-male relationships in an overriding male-female culture. I suggested to the group at the time that we document what we were discovering but, unfortunately, we were all too busy living our lives and our relationships to do that. (I think it would have made fascinating reading not only for other gay men but for heterosexuals as well. We really aren't all that different although there are important differences, too.) After David's death I fairly quickly found myself in another relationship that lasted for three years. I'm not going to talk about it because it was very fucked up in a lot of ways, although also quite fascinating. It could be a novel unto itself! Suffice it to say that since that ended in late 2000 I haven't been in a relationship and haven't been sexual at all. Not that I don't sometimes think about it, of course, but, frankly, at this age, I just don't have the energy it takes to find, build and sustain a relationship with anyone. Relationships, for all their joys and sorrows, really are a lot of work. SO -- all the above (and I realize it is a lot) is to say to any of you who are interested: "This is where I'm coming from." I do this because I first of all need you to know that being "gay," like being "straight," doesn't necessarily conform you to any particular stereotype. We're all individuals and we're all different. We have many things in common and many things that we don't share. The primary difference (so far as I can tell) between "gay" and "straight" is that the latter is assumed to be the norm. It is very difficult for people who identify with the norm to 'get' what that means because it is the water you swim in and take for granted. Those of us who live and experience life outside that norm have to contend with this in various ways. One (in my opinion ultimately unhealthy) way is to create a sub-culture within the dominant culture. The benefit is it creates a 'safe' social space within which one can be more one's self. The down side is it is isolationist and can feed negative stereotyping (if not down-right misapprehension) of the minority group. The way I see it MOST of the negative associations many straight people have with homosexuality appear precisely because of its normative (judgemental) attitudes towards it -- which then becomes reinforced by the isolationist tendencies of the sub-culture that invariably arises. That is fairly abstract so let me give an example: Many heterosexuals believe that most homosexuals are only or predominantly interested in sex without emotional involvement, much less commitment. What they don't understand is that this fixation on sex that many homosexual men exhibit 1) isn't all that different from the sexual fixation most heterosexual men experience (the difference being only in the object of desire) and 2) the predisposition to negative judgement and the absence of positive roll modeling within the culture reinforce the need to 'act out' and 'behave' in ways that reinforce the very activity being judged. More specifically, had I been able to freely express my emotional feelings toward the boy I fell in love with as a teenager without the fear of condemnation by either him or the society around us, I likely would have done so. Had those feelings not been reciprocated, that pretty much would have been the end of it. I could still have my feelings and feel 'ok' about having them -- just as a straight boy might have to deal with a similar situation toward a girl who didn't have reciprocal feelings toward him. Or, more favorably, had the boy felt similarly in this imaginary 'ideal' world, we would have been able to explore our relationship in exactly the same way heterosexuals would have -- and without any overriding condemnation of it. ABSENT THIS what happens is the need to keep secret and hidden what ought to be appreciated as an expression of something, well, ultimately 'divine'. I want to share with all of you something I came across recently that you may find quite interesting. First, what this is is a part of a boy/boy romance story written and posted in an on-line forum that is geared predominantly to pornography of various sorts. Although this excerpt isn't pornographic it does mention 'sucking' so just be aware of that. In brief, the story is about a gay boy, Dermot, whose parents had died leaving him in the care of an abusive uncle who, discovering that he was gay, threw him out of the house. Dermot then ends up on the street and, to survive, becomes a hustler and is eventually beaten and raped by a group of thugs. Battered and bloody, Dermot is discovered by a well-to-do good samaritan who sees to it that he is taken to hospital and cared for so he can begin to heal not only physically but emotionally from the trauma. The good samaritan is a father who has a gay son, Lando, near the same age as Dermot. Lando visits Dermot in hospital during his recovery and they begin to become friends. One thing Dermot discovers is that Lando, while identifying as "gay," also identifies as "Catholic," and Dermot finds this very confusing -- especially since a Catholic priest toward whom he had turned in his desperation basically told him he was going to hell for being homosexual. This is part of their conversation about this subject: QUOTE "It doesn't compute, Lando. I think you're fooling yourself. But shit! What do I know?" Dermot concluded in a rush of uncertainty, not wishing to offend his friend. "If you promise not to get all hostile, I'll give you the benefit of my thoughts on the subject," Lando said. Dermot nodded. Lando began, "I did tell you that I had to struggle with it, and you are right in saying that the fit is not perfect. All I can say is that I knew I was both gay and Catholic, and I had to find a way to make that work for me. I talked to my dad, to Father Schiller, and to my psychologist, Dr. Lanier. And I'm going to use the word 'sin' whether you like it or not. Now just shut up and listen. We can argue about it some other time. "The way I see it, there are three ways a person can experience sex. One way is the way you have experienced it. Sex can be used to hurt someone. The most obvious way is in the S&M stuff you were describing, and in rape. That's a blatant, physical harm. But there are other ways in which sex can be used to hurt someone. Sex can be used to try to control someone. I haven't seen this in my own life, but I have heard of instances at school where a girl told her boyfriend, 'if you don't do what I want, there will be no sex for you.' That's a perversion of sex, I think. Both these examples are more about power and control than sex. And then, sex can be used to depersonalize someone. Use someone. Just treating someone like an object instead of a person. What's the phrase? A cum bucket. So, I think if you're the instigator of any of these kinds of sex, that's a serious sin. What we call a mortal or deadly sin, because it kills the spirit. It dulls the conscience if something like this is done often enough, so people get to think there's nothing wrong with it, but that does not change the reality. You're dehumanizing the other person. In these examples, sex is used to hurt the other person, and treat that person as something less than a full human being, a child of God. "Another way of having sex is what we might call recreational sex that does not harm anyone. I mean, something like what I described doing. I really enjoy sucking and being sucked, and the guys who have been my partners have been kids at school, like me. It's completely mutual, and completely consensual. Nobody is being coerced, physically or otherwise. Just a couple of guys getting off. But it's not serious. None of us are into a serious relationship. We're not cheating on anybody. It's just fun. Now, I don't think that's a serious sin, but it's not using sex the way God intended it, either. But what I'm doing is no different, morally, than what an awful lot of straight kids are doing on dates. So, I think of this as a venial sin. It is a sin, because it's using sex in something other than the best way, but it's not going to send me to hell. Purgatory, maybe, but not hell. "Finally, there is sex the way God intended it. Father Schiller told me sex is the greatest gift God gave mankind, next to His divine Son, Jesus. Sex is meant to be an expression of love. St. John tells us, 'God is Love.' In its most perfect form, when it is an expression of genuine, unselfish love, sex is a participation in the love God has for humanity. It's actually something sacred. And that's true whether it's gay or straight sex. And I don't think that kind of sex is a sin at all." I share this with you for a variety of reasons. One is that although I don't regard myself particularly religious (let alone Catholic) I fundamentally agree with this character's understanding of human sexuality. The use of sexual energy, regardless in what form it manifests, for something other than 'divine union' is to fall short of its true purpose and, worse, when used for purposes of power over others, manipulation and control, or sadistic harm, is a perversion -- again, regardless of the gender specifics involved. Many of us suspect that sexuality is used in this perverse sense by the elites (yes, some within the military) for the purpose of manipulating and control -- including keeping all us confused about the higher purposes of human sexuality (again, regardless of the gender specifics). I also share it because, having grown up when I did, I'm seeing that many gay young people today don't struggle with their sexuality in exactly the same way I had to. At the very least (whatever their understanding or attitude about it may be), most know that there is a world of "gay" people beyond their immediate social environment. In fact, what I'm seeing is there is a lot of "gay porn" being written by and shared among gay and bisexual teenagers and young adults which often (by no means always) are structured around romantic relationships such as being developed in the story above. Through story sharing they are trying to imagine a world quite different from the one I was brought up in. That these stories also include a strong erotic element may be disconcerting to some but given the fact that 'boys are boys' regardless of their sexual preference, this is hardly surprising. This thread is now open for conversation (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) |
Oct 22 2009, 01:56 PM
Group: Contributor Posts: 287 Joined: 18-February 08 From: USA: N.C. Member No.: 2,762 |
Thanks for being so gracious to share your thoughts. I, for one, have always been amazed if not awed, how gay people are able to find life-partners...I mean, it's hard enough to do so in a heterosexual world, and heteros are not running the risk of all the negative stereotypes associated with the gay community. I went to a very liberal college, where homosexuality wasn't a big deal at all...and like Mark, was propositioned a number of times and felt flattered as well. Even growing up in the south, I never really gave it much thought....folks is folks. My aunt (actually more like a cousin due to age), I learned was struggling with her sexuality while in college (and I in high school), and finally came out in her early twentys. Sadly, she assumed I would have a problem with it, and alienated herself from me. My sister-in-law also struggled with it, finally coming out just several years prior to her death (suicide). It is a shame it has to be so difficult. Rick |
Oct 22 2009, 02:50 PM
Group: Student Forum Pilot Posts: 87 Joined: 19-February 09 From: California Member No.: 4,145 |
Thank you so much, Painter, for sharing.
In the thread that introduced this subject, I mentioned that I have a brother who is gay. He is 16 years my junior. By the time he first became aware of his "difference" I was already married and having babies. During his young adult years, when I was still totally unaware of his secret struggles, he and I began corresponding. We had discovered a connection. That led, eventually, to his opening up to me and to the whole family. Our parents did not take it well at first. I remember clearly my thoughts at the time: The fact of his revealing this information to me didn't negate in any way what I already knew about him. He's a wonderful, thoughtful, kind, intelligent human being. That didn't change. I already knew who he was. We have remained close ever since. I feel fortunate to have a loving relationship with all my siblings. |
Oct 22 2009, 03:58 PM
Group: Admin Posts: 9,266 Joined: 13-August 06 Member No.: 1 |
.... and this is why we all love the painter... not only does the man paint beautiful pictures with a brush, but does also with words... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Excellent read my friend.. .thanks for sharing. And yes, i read it all... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) One thing i didnt know was that Bill was openly gay.... i felt pretty close to him, but never knew this about him.... thanks again. I think Ricky said it best. I can't imagine the struggles involved growing up with something that was not accepted socially. Much respect to you my friend. |
Oct 23 2009, 01:31 AM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
Oct 23 2009, 01:48 AM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
Oct 23 2009, 03:44 AM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
Oct 23 2009, 06:24 AM
Group: Contributor Posts: 766 Joined: 30-January 08 Member No.: 2,690 |
Hi Painter!
Thanks for splitting this off. Excellent moderation decision because its an endlessly thought provoking subject. I'll pick up on one thing you said in your OP and run with it. 1. QUOTE I still am a guy and although I'll be 62 years old soon, my libido isn't much different than it was at 22. That's not a brag, its just the honest truth. Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . . Well I'm 52 and from my POV, I always want people to have that impression because untarnished virility is the only viable position for a guy. I fully understand why you say that, and do not take it as a "brag" but just ensuring there's no doubt on the point. After all we're both still guys! As to the "honest truth" part . . . . ummm . . . ummm . . . . after all we're both still guys! Enough trying to be funny with ironic or cynical comments. Actually I'd like to suggest a reason why what you say is indeed the "honest truth". It might point to a fundamental difference between gay and straight men that has some social policy implications. I have noticed a decline in my libido lately. There might be a biological reason why yours, on the other hand, has not despite ten more years of wear n' tear. I noticed that the decline coincided with my youngest kiddo reaching age 18 - legal adulthood, and the larger biological concept of viability independent of his parents. The recreational aspects of sex get so much play that we forget that reproduction is the primary reason for the male design. 1 So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido. I hope you don't find my social policy view on this as backward but instead as realistic and practical. People are just another form of animal, and the primary mission of all species is to reproduce. So anthropology requires human government to have policies that first of all ensure the perpetuation of the species. The nuances of this preclude policies that produce constant, uniform and perfect equality for GLBT people, but we can still come close. Here's a few critical background thoughts. First, the emotional social policy arguments made by GLBT activists are makeweight because the real driver of their concerns (and their best arguments) lie in economics.2 Next, I don't buy the reactionary argument that GLBT people pose a threat to the perpetuation of the species3, so there is no fundamental conflict between the existing social policy that favors reproduction and new ones that redress GLBT concerns. Finally there's nothing wrong with a few policies that grant a benefit to a larger group that is simply not available to a smaller group; it's wrong when the favor protects the large group from some type of harm while its denial keeps the smaller group exposed to that same harm. Here's some examples: ( a ) Gay Marriage - The real reason why this should be allowed is because the property that married people both own can't be seized to satisfy a legal judgment that a creditor has against only one spouse, while GLBT couples don't have this basic protection. Perpetuation of our kind provides a good reason for a policy that protects children from being cast out on the street because of one parent's misjudgment. However, footnote 3 demolishes the notion that GLBT sex decreases the reproduction rate, so discouraging it does nothing to further the policy, and is not a good reason to deny this protection to GLBT couples as well. GLBT couples split up just like hetero couples but without a legal marriage. structured and orderly divorce proceedings are not available to them. If they cannot agree on how to fairly divide their property, then the less advantaged party has to resort self-help, blackmail, extortion, threats and violence to "encourage" the other one to be fair. The second most important social policy is to do everything possible to prevent such dangerous activity, but it is obvious that denying divorce to so many people actually facilitates these dangerous situations. It's a no brainer. Finally, both sides wring their hands and make emotional arguments grounded in the romance or sanctity of marriage. "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry but only the straights can" or "God says marriage is between a man and woman". At best all that is secondary and at worst a bunch of b u l l s h i t. There are two practical reasons why marriage has symbolic value. First, it makes a record putting the rest of the world on notice that the couple falls within the two above legal categories and gives everyone else has fair warning to conduct themselves accordingly. Second, it clarifies the couple's legal rights and duties inter se. ( b ) Employee Medical Benefits - The above analysis produces roughly the same result here, but that result is dependent on legal marriage being equally available to straights and GLBTs in the first place. If it is, then the extent and quality of these benefits should be the same for any couple that has assumed the benefits and burdens of marriage. I have several reasons for requiring marriage. It gives the employer a bright line test instead of having to make a fuzzy definition "domestic partner" and equally fuzzy case by case determinations about whether a LGBT couple qualifies. The current "domestic partner" concept is unsatisfactory. Unlike marriage, it does not require a really substantial commitment to each other, when the reason why employers provide these benefits is that an employee with fewer worries about substantial commitments is more focused and a better employee. Moreover there is no effective way to prevent a friend or relative of the employee from becoming a "domestic partner of convenience" for the sole purpose of getting benefits. ( c ) Child Tax Deductions - This is a great policy tool to motivate people to have enough offspring and otherwise get with and keep The Big Perpetuation Program rolling. It's true that practically all the benefit goes to heteros and bisexuals while homosexuals are excluded. However, this is a case where the disparity is only on the benefit side because there is no corresponding increase in taxes on homosexuals to discourage them. Moreover, childless heteros and bis are equally excluded. Finally, the only test is whether one has natural or legally adopted children so it is equally available to homosexuals who adopt or decide to have a natural child. ( d ) Married Filing Jointly Tax Rates - Now here's a tricky one. At first blush legalized homosexual marriages would qualify the couple for these lower rates because the only current requirement is a legally recognized marriage (including common law). The problem is that this tax break is currently rooted in the Big Perpetuation Plan and only seems to hang together as part of it. Hetero and bi sexuals are inclined to do what it takes to reproduce, and their marriages tend to encourage having children and then provide a structure that protects them until they are able to become independent and ready to spawn the next generation. On the other hand, married or not, homosexual relations preclude natural children from the outset. Childless married heteros and bis are always capable of doing that, including those who disavow any intent to have children (all it takes is a change of intent or an accident). The troubling result is that there is no reason to give homosexuals a tax break that is justified by the potential to participate in The Big Plan and even worse, only they suffer an increased tax burden. Unfortunately, the purpose of tax benefits is to influence behavior in a certain direction but in this case money can't produce the desired result. That is not inherently evil like imposing a tax penalty due to a status. Clearly adoption should trigger an equivalent tax break because it restores the justification. Otherwise, this may be a hard case that defies perfect equality. (e) Gay Adoption - Because I think sexual orientation is pre-wired, it follows that there is no way for this to make any difference at all in the existing straight/gay ratio. We will keep having the same number of babies anyway so this is no threat to the Big Perpetuation Plan. Moral considerations are secondary to that. But the moral objections I hear are nevertheless hooey. First, I don't view sexual fetishes and preferences such as GLBT as abnormal but rather as deviations from some norm that must be numbingly dull and incredibly boring. To put that in context, all humans are different so only one of them at a time can fall squarely in the "norm" position so by definition all the rest are deviates. To make it even worse, any one person who lands on the norm is immediately dethroned because another birth or death alters his place in the distribution. Deviations from the norm are the norm. When it comes to sex, everyone has their own quirks that make them deviations from the norm so every child in history has been reared by some kind of sexual deviate (including mine). How can you base any moral judgment on sex when the background is this dark, or meaningfully distinguish GLBT's from the other tribes, let alone go even further and say that as adoptive parents they present a special moral problem? ___________________________ 1. Upon receipt of a signal from his brain to initiate an . . umm . . "Outreach Program", his brain then shuts down, but his equipment picks up the slack by becoming a tool that, if its quest is successful, can be poked into whatever it ends up finding. Whether the things it seeks are consciously chosen or preordained is another issue that's thankfully beyond the scope of what I'm trying to say. FWIW I think preordained. 2. Another way we're more the same that different - just a bunch of greedy f u c k e r s, the whole lot of us. 3. I think that both reactionary conservatives and GLBT activists overstate the natural incidence of homosexuality and/or how inclined straights might be to cross the line. IIRC some GLBT estimates exceed 25%. The rednecks don't talk in numbers but tend to be fearful people who perceive threats are behind every tree (there's lots of trees). I put homosexuality at around 5% but also think that bisexuals are far more numerous. You can get to 20% by including them. Bisexuals by definition intend to reproduce so the key to my point that assuming 95% of the population are potential breeders, homosexuality cannot possibly threaten the survival of the species. GLBT activists probably prefer the gross number because presenting a large group in monolithic fashion is an impressive way to show that we are not some exotic fringe group; since widespread de facto social acceptance is fait accompli, public policy must change. The broken down numbers are more impressive to me because they are the key that unlocks the policy puzzle. Instead of numbers, social conservatives are fixated on moral arguments. Apparently they fear opening the gates because, among other things, most people will then succumb to the temptations of sodomy instead of having enough babies. I think that's nonsense for several reasons. Sexual preference seems to be imposed on people by forces that are outside their control and powerful enough to override casual choice. For millenia, moralists have held the same gate open for easy travel in the opposite direction by homosexuals succumbing to the temptations of hetero sex and just as constantly bemoaned the lack of traffic. Why would the opposite be any different? Is there any objective data showing that one way is much better than the other? No. The only people I can think of who can make a meaningful comparison are bisexuals, but apparently they can't decide. |
Oct 23 2009, 01:03 PM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
... As to the "honest truth" part . . . . ummm . . . ummm . . . . after all we're both still guys! LoL. Well, I may have exaggerated a bit but not much. The difference for me has to do with motivation. I've never been interested in or inclined toward anonymous sexual encounters (a lot of men are). Living where I do, even and old guy like me can have plenty of sex pretty much as often as he would want. But that's just it. I'm not motivated to make that happen. It just feels like too much work. However, my imagination is as active as ever. QUOTE So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido. I think you're making a lot of assumptions here based on little or no empirical evidence. I haven't researched any of this so I really don't know -- not even sure how one would evaluate the 'truthyness' of a subject's claim in the matter anyway. Put simply, I suspect it is fairly individual and probably more genetically based than environmentally or socially based. Just from personal experience, the gay men I know who have natural sons of reproductive age haven't shown any decline in sexual interest -- but this is an admittedly limited sample. QUOTE I hope you don't find my social policy view on this as backward but instead as realistic and practical. People are just another form of animal, and the primary mission of all species is to reproduce. So anthropology requires human government to have policies that first of all ensure the perpetuation of the species. The nuances of this preclude policies that produce constant, uniform and perfect equality for GLBT people, but we can still come close. I don't mind but I've never been a very "practical" person. I've given a link to this thread to an 18 year old gay activist friend of mine who, no doubt, will find your position and arguments quite interesting. Being the artist, philosopher, mystical type, I'm more interested in the "aesthetics" of the matter. For example, I would never say, "People are just another form of animal." That is one thing we are but it is not all that we are. So far as government's need for policies that "ensure the perpetuation of the species," I think that's just a lame excuse for the policies -- polices which in general perpetuate not the species but the "captive herd" of the work force needed to sustain the (almost invariably) hierarchical structure of the social system. Government's were not the cause of human kind's arising much less its perpetuation except in a given social "form" or "structure". My broad (and admittedly not detailed or deep) survey of social attitudes toward homosexuality and sex in general throughout history suggests there is no clear correlation between these attitudes and any need to insure procreation. If anything, what is evident is the need to define property (wife and children) by patrimony and, in a larger sense, the society as a whole (population) as the property (herd) of a ruling elite. Social attitudes toward homosexuality may be negative but so are social attitudes toward heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity. I'm maintaining that if "survival of the species" was at all a concern this latter would not be the case. I'm leaving aside a lot more that might be involved here such as the (perceived) need to "control" sexual tendencies and attitudes -- as if people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if there wasn't some "authority" telling them what to do and how to do it. Total bunk, IMO. BUT, unfortunately my time is short and I'll have to leave the rest of your post for another time. Just to be clear, what I'm most interested in is sexual energy (regardless of the focus of desire) and its uses and misuses. I'm much more interested in talking about how social systems attempt to control the manifestation of that energy, whether it has to do with 'making babies' (property) or selling refrigerators (property). When all the while what is really happening is the dis-empowering of the individual through the sublimation of an energetic force that has many sublime properties -- from procreation to the manifestation of the 'divine'. If it can be sufficiently 'warped' this powerful energy can be put in the service of 'controllers', thus insuring the general complacency of the herd. I'll let you chew on that for a while. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) |
Oct 25 2009, 08:47 AM
Group: Global Mod Posts: 5,019 Joined: 2-October 07 From: USA, a Federal corporation Member No.: 2,294 |
Although I'm quite likely to disagree with some/much of the above [at a much later time], I just wanted to pick painter's brain on this specific 1967 Janis Ian song that he quoted on my "grotto" thread at post #60 (that I noticed when I was trying to "troubleshoot" Internet speaker problems (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10768411 Much of that was "before my time," and reading her lyrics, I suspect that there was a "context" (EDIT: or two+) that likely applies to this thread... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) EDIT: I never knew that "Grizz" was gay either... Make that one "brother" and one "uncle" of mine that are/were "lately" gay. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
Oct 25 2009, 02:07 PM
∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞ Group: Valued Member Posts: 5,870 Joined: 25-August 06 From: SFO Member No.: 16 |
Although I'm quite likely to disagree with some/much of the above [at a much later time]... Looking forward to it! QUOTE ...I just wanted to pick painter's brain on this specific 1967 Janis Ian song... This particular song was a chart topper in the fall of 1967 when I was a freshman in college. She is specifically commenting on inter-racial dating. Although not overtly stated in the lyrics, it is apparent in the musical composition. Yes, so far as prejudicial social attitudes are concerned, the song is relevant to some of this thread. (It might be interesting to note that Janice Ian is now an "out" lesbian although she was not when she wrote and sang this song.) Again, my primary interest here is NOT to be an apologist for homosexuality but to bring up questions about the way human sexuality -- a very powerful force -- is "perverted" to serve the interests of a social order that is in direct opposition to our individual liberty and empowerment. Perhaps I should change the subject title of this thread? |
Oct 25 2009, 02:54 PM
Group: Administrator Posts: 7,986 Joined: 13-September 06 Member No.: 49 |
Maybe, dunnoh, but in lieu of that, I subscribe to the BOLDED in the above post.
I've been reading this thread from the get-go. Both astounding and refreshing. |
Oct 29 2009, 07:25 PM
Group: Contributor Posts: 766 Joined: 30-January 08 Member No.: 2,690 |
Hi Painter! Great response to my anthropo-politico tome above!
1. I first theorized: QUOTE So perhaps heterosexual male libido naturally declines after confirmation that they have spawned viable offspring (consider the parallel in animals, for example, male salmon just up and die). On the other hand, most gay men never reach this juncture in life, so their hormones have no occasion to send this natural signal that diminishes libido. You responded: QUOTE I think you're making a lot of assumptions here based on little or no empirical evidence. I haven't researched any of this so I really don't know -- not even sure how one would evaluate the 'truthyness' of a subject's claim in the matter anyway. Well my primary test subject is me! I agree that a lot more is needed. I think there are some scientific studies that support my theory (I'll try to find them). As I grew up I heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from older men - mostly to the effect that they are working so hard to pay for college that they don't have time to think about it, or so burned out from having reared the kiddos and booted them out the door that they don't have as much inclination. Female peers entering menopause probably changes the perspective. Maybe all it amounts to is finally growing up! Actually, you said something that seems to fit right into the pattern: QUOTE The difference for me has to do with motivation. . . . . even and old guy like me can have plenty of sex pretty much as often as he would want. But that's just it. I'm not motivated to make that happen. It just feels like too much work. However, my imagination is as active as ever. This decline in libido does not show itself physiologically. A guy has to make it clear that he is not talking about that problem. The Lawyer's Process is still serviceable. Like any solid guy, you have already taken pains to make it clear that your situation doesn't involve a physiological issue. I'm just catching up. 2. You said this about the decline in libido when children become viable: QUOTE Put simply, I suspect it is fairly individual and probably more genetically based than environmentally or socially based. Just from personal experience, the gay men I know who have natural sons of reproductive age haven't shown any decline in sexual interest -- but this is an admittedly limited sample. My problem is that your two latest Posts then proceed to make an excellent case that it is environmentally and socially driven to large degree, which is discussed in point 3. We also seem to be stepping on each others toes. I hang my hat on some "Primordial Urge To Reproduce" common to humans and animals. I thought (and most people would conclude) that genetics underlies my argument that there would be a decline in libido after successful reproduction, and here you are saying that it is genetically based! At the same time, due to what you said about environment and socialization, I now think that those factors play a huge part. They distinguish humans from animals and weaken the original genetic basis for my argument. The men with natural adult sons are interesting. It seems that some of them could be bisexual instead of homosexual. If their interest in sex with females has declined (or disappeared) then it would be consistent with a decline in libido driven by successful reproduction. I get a charge out of going out socially. So does the wife. We both have enough sexual interest to do some social flirting. The problem is getting up the will to go out in the first place. It often seems easier not to. Perhaps you only see these guys when they are already out socially and similarly charged up. They may have the same going out in the first place problem. Speaking of the wife, then you have the natural result of decades of marriage and lip service to monogamy overlaid. Somehow the tedium seems safer now. These guys most likely aren't married (or still married) but any of them who are bi could be married and with an understanding spouse, very happily so. The potential marriage factor cuts both ways and throws a real spanner into the works! 3. The following things seem to fit my experience well; making me think that environmental and social factors are primary and that genetics are secondary. In other words, genetics would still naturally cause some decline in libido, but I have a bigger problem than that alone would produce due to the bullshit surrounding me. You aptly pointed it out. QUOTE If anything, what is evident is the need to define property (wife and children) by patrimony and, in a larger sense, the society as a whole (population) as the property (herd) of a ruling elite. Social attitudes toward homosexuality may be negative but so are social attitudes toward heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity. I'm maintaining that if "survival of the species" was at all a concern this latter would not be the case. I'm leaving aside a lot more that might be involved here such as the (perceived) need to "control" sexual tendencies and attitudes -- as if people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if there wasn't some "authority" telling them what to do and how to do it. Total bunk, IMO. BUT, unfortunately my time is short and I'll have to leave the rest of your post for another time. Just to be clear, what I'm most interested in is sexual energy (regardless of the focus of desire) and its uses and misuses. I'm much more interested in talking about how social systems attempt to control the manifestation of that energy, whether it has to do with 'making babies' (property) or selling refrigerators (property). When all the while what is really happening is the dis-empowering of the individual through the sublimation of an energetic force that has many sublime properties -- from procreation to the manifestation of the 'divine'. If it can be sufficiently 'warped' this powerful energy can be put in the service of 'controllers', thus insuring the general complacency of the herd. This made me realize several things. First, part of my problem is that having successfully reproduced, now we turn the kiddos out into the terrible world that we have made for them. Just look at the grim general subject matter of this Board, and all the other topics on the News, Government, and Religion Threads. That's enough to wilt The Proudest Tower One Can Erect! There's a real chance the whole thing was futile. Second, the biggest misuse of sexual energy that I can think of is the way advertising and entertainment uses it to assign roles to people, which they then dutifully act out. Car ads - for men, penile plumage; for women, sassy attitude; all presented as a way to get laid better. Football Beer Commercials - guys see a beautiful woman and get all stupid, which is demeaning to all men. Worst of all, the lame sexual humor on sitcoms - those people don't even know how to swear right! Fascination with celebrity sex - who gives a s h i t, all they want is to get laid just like you (its genetic?). Third, the kids are just another control mechanism. The whole time I have felt the Man making subtle threats to their well being if we don't toe the line. They understand my argument about the drive to propagate and know that the worst threat is one made against the survival of your spawn. And that's just for starters. 4. QUOTE Again, my primary interest here is NOT to be an apologist for homosexuality but to bring up questions about the way human sexuality -- a very powerful force -- is "perverted" to serve the interests of a social order that is in direct opposition to our individual liberty and empowerment. A. I don't think there is anything to apologize for and don't think that you think there is. Hence I'm not surprised that your not here to apologize! Your on solid ground with me my friend! B. I was sure that you would understand my Post and the rest of your quote shows that you did and took it to a higher level. I started by reducing a conception of a "good society" to a core - policies that support the perpetuation of the species, standing alone and un perverted, are not bad things. That has led to a lot of the historic unequal treatment of GLBT people and that policy is at the root of many of the issues that they raise. When examined, that policy does not justify just about all of the unequal treatment and equal treatment can be provided consistent with that policy (I went the other way on the joint filing thing just to show I'm not a metronome). I also wanted to point out some flaws in the arguments. And as you point out, the biggest flaw in what I say is that you can't look at it so abstractly given how screwed up reality is. C. Points 1, 2 and 3 address only the "declining libido" question, not this larger social policy question, although the two dovetail. 5. QUOTE For example, I would never say, "People are just another form of animal." That is one thing we are but it is not all that we are. A. I agree that my statement is to strong. I should have left out the "just". Got your attention, did it? B. People are much more complex. Here's one dark way that we differ from near relatives, the apes. Gibbons are truly monogamous. Gorillas collect in harems. Chimpanzees are pretty promiscuous. Only the humans are capable of hypocrisy - they profess to be like the Gibbons and behave like the Chimps. C. I think that GLBT's are a nice way that we differ from the animals. I don't think its genetic or the result of environment. What I think is that unlike the animals, people can engage in abstract thought and create conditions that give them time for it instead of spending all their time focused on survival. So I think it is a product of the human brain's capacity and ability to engage in independent and unconventional thought. For example, I prefer women and Impressionist paintings, and can give reasons. There are others who beg to disagree, and have their reasons. I don't mean to say that this is a matter of deliberate choice. No one can control or stop the next thought that they might have. Nor is it genetic. Genetics don't influence your thoughts and there are smart and dumb gays and straights. Finally, its not environmental. Abstract thinking by definition is divorced from the environment. |
Oct 30 2009, 09:23 PM
Group: Private Forum Pilot Posts: 192 Joined: 16-October 06 From: Australia (WA) Member No.: 81 |
Now with the invention of the internet 'hook ups' are so common in our sub-culture they even make reference to them in our movies. Watch the first 3 minutes and 15 seconds of the video to the left, "Latter Days. I've watched it a dozen times and still find it hilarious. Thanks Painter. That is pretty darn funny. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) |
Nov 20 2009, 04:38 AM
Group: Contributor Posts: 766 Joined: 30-January 08 Member No.: 2,690 |
Hi Painter and everyone!
Up above here I hypothesized that the male sex drive declines upon confirmation that he has produced viable offspring, which led to some discussion and debate. Here's an article in the Local Rag that might shed some partial light on my thought. There's a natural decline in testosterone levels as males age so a new hormonal therapy is being tested. Then apparently there is a similar problem in post-menopausal women, for which hormonal replenishment is an established treatment but now undesirable side effects are being found. The relevant parts of the article follows. QUOTE Can testosterone therapy aid older men? Study tests hormone gel on men older than 65 Tuesday, November 03, 2009 By Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette As men age, their testosterone levels naturally drop. But for some men, the male sex hormone may sink so low that they not only lose all interest in sex, but suffer more falls, have memory problems and experience anemia. A new national study at the University of Pittsburgh and 11 other sites will now explore whether applying testosterone gel to the abdomen, torso or upper arms can reverse those effects. QUOTE Dr. Jane Cauley, the main local investigator and an epidemiology professor at Pitt, said that sexual desire, energy, strength and a clear mind are "all important for a person's quality of life, and what we will be doing is to look at these overall markers of well-being." The study has been years in the making, Dr. Snyder said, and when it was first suggested by the national Institute of Medicine in 2003, it was quite controversial. The institute's recommendation came out at around the same time that a large study of hormone replacement therapy in post-menopausal women, the Women's Health Initiative, showed that the female hormone treatments put women at greater risk of getting breast cancer, heart disease and other ailments. That prompted the New York Times to ask in an editorial: "Can American men be rushing into the same reckless use of hormones that brought grief and anxiety to so many unsuspecting women? That disquieting possibility is raised by a new report that laments a huge upsurge in testosterone replacement therapy for men despite a paucity of evidence that it is safe or beneficial. One wonders whether another medical debacle is in the making." LINK: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09307/1010305-114.stm |
Nov 20 2009, 09:19 AM
Group: Valued Member Posts: 2,170 Joined: 29-September 07 From: Hampshire, UK. Member No.: 2,274 |
The pic is of me around age 17, taken in a broken truck side mirror. Like the camera. The pentaprism top makes it look like an SR7, or an SR1 or SR 1s which had a meter clip on bracket but with an even narrower top edge to the pentaprism. I note the absence of a mirror up-lock control. I had a brace of Minolta SRT101s (whilst in the RN - they stood up well to high temperatures and humidity (except the lube' in one lens ran slowing down the aperture close down) which ruined a couple of films before I realised it was happening. Shooting mostly on process paid transparency film Kodachrome II (ASA25), Agfa CT-18 (ASA50) and then early Fujichrome as it appeared (ASA100) I didn't see the results until arriving home on leave. I still have 3 working SRT 101s and a couple of X700s (and even one of those Minolta 16 IIs) having stayed with Minolta until they vanished. I bought a Dynax 7, then KM Dynax 7D and having moved onto Sony (A100 and A700) whereby my lens and flash kits can be still well used. I have resisted buying any C-sensor standard lenses and have picked up a few v.good second hand Minolta full frame AF lenses. These AF cameras are all very well but I still like the robust handling feel of the older SRT101s which I can use in inclement conditions that would kill the others. Still use my old Weston Master V which still has its Invercone attachment in it own little leather pouch. Sorry for the diversion. Not trying to highjack your thread. |
Nov 20 2009, 08:04 PM
Group: Active Forum Pilot Posts: 1,842 Joined: 1-March 07 Member No.: 710 |
well, i have always thought hormones to be the invention of satan.
testosterone may have some benefits, but it is regarded as the stimulant for prostrate cancer. and estrogen, well it is now being thought to be a stimulant for various female cancers and other illnesses. and the estrogen entering the water supply via sewage is thought to be seriously screwing around with freshwater and saltwater fisheries. as walt kelly once wrote, we have met the enemy and it[sic] is us. |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th May 2013 - 04:53 AM |


text:
So said Barack Obama recently in response to charges by Mitt Romney that the president is running a campaign of hate and anger. Reasonable people, the saying goes, can disagree and still get along. But how true is that when people perceive the causes the other side is fighting for do harm? The point? Obama doesn't have to try and divide the country. It is already divided.
I certainly would never make the argument that anything can actually be done about that fact beyond one side definitively defeating the other and ultimately forcing a large and permanent political re-alignment on the nation in their side's favor. Barring such a happy or calamitous result (depending on your point of view), you have the left and you have the right and — while on some issues they can come together and agree — two so diametrically opposing world-views not only will not, but indeed cannot, find very much common ground.
But for the president to suggest that he and his supporters are not divisive is, at best, darkly amusing. Take Joe Biden's recent comments while campaigning in Danville, Va. After stating that Republicans wanted to unchain Wall Street by deregulation, he added, "They're going to put y'all back in chains."
Whatever Biden meant, "back in" can only truly mean one thing when speaking to Americans about chains. As Obama could not possibly have been elected to the presidency without a very large number of white voters, what does that mean? Only people obsessed with race can know for sure.
And what of the pro-Obama commercial that attempts to link Romney to a woman's death due to cancer? The facts are that, while Joe Soptic indeed lost his job, it wasn't until five years later that his wife died. She also did not lose her own health insurance when Soptic lost his job. She kept her employer-sponsored coverage at least a year after that, something with which neither Bain Capital nor Mitt Romney had anything to do. As FactCheck.org points out, there are a lot of "mights" in Soptic's story, most importantly that his wife might have found out soon enough to do something about the cancer had he still had his coverage. But perhaps just as importantly — a "might" Soptic leaves out — is that he might have lost his job and health insurance a lot earlier then he actually did had Bain not invested first $8 million and later $16.5 million in the company at which Soptic worked.
Divisive? Or merely disgusting?
And then there is Obama himself. Of course, it's easy to see why many Americans love Obama. Granted, that statement should be qualified by adding that I mean Americans ignorant of history, economics and human nature; in short, reality itself.
How could they not?
After reading the recent remarks made by Obama in now what can only be termed as his infamous speech in Roanoke, Va., the message is just the kind of nonsense that resonates with either those so rich they don't have to care or those who, inexplicably, believe dependency leads to stronger families and communities rather than the evident nightmare it actually creates.
While the whole speech is riddled with his endlessly repeated, innocent-sounding euphemisms for promoting both individual irresponsibility at home and a weaker nation overall, the real bombshell in Obama's speech occurred near its end. Mingled, as all good fiction is, with a spoonful of truth, Obama made the following observation:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn't — look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen. The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet."
"If you've got a business — you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen" is perhaps one of the most divisive things Obama has ever said.
I'm willing to concede that he could have, as some claim, meant that they did not build those roads and bridges he referred to in the sentence before. And the fact cannot be disputed that no man is an island. Every successful person can look back to a teacher, parent, mentor or friend who made a difference in their life. Regardless, the whole passage nevertheless makes it crystal clear — as backed up by Obama's whole philosophy, his actions as president, and his other speeches as well as his tone in this speech — that he feels government is the answer to every problem, the parent for every child, the friend to every man, and the solution to every ill that plagues humanity.
Those that stand on the other side of this argument could not disagree more, hence the divide, hence the irreconcilable differences.
Look at America today and you'll find all the evidence you need that government is not the be-all, end-all to mankind's problems. As government has taken on greater and greater responsibilities, and as our local communities, families and churches have given them up, is America really better? Is there less crime? Less violence? Less poverty? Less teenage pregnancy? How many single parent homes are there today? Leftist programs have helped destroy countless families and this, in turn, has produced more of the aforementioned problems. How many people today live in a never-ending cycle of dependency upon government? It doesn't take a genius to realize such dependency is the soup in which despair simmers.
This is a better America?
I'm not talking about doing away with providing assistance or even cradle-to-grave support for those who truly cannot help themselves, or even a temporary safety net for those who suddenly find themselves unemployed. Liberals, however, love to twist beyond all recognition what conservatives really mean when they want to reform entitlements and prevent taxes like Social Security from consuming more and more of the nation's productivity. Liberals want you to believe that conservatives seek to gut these programs and let little old ladies starve to death. That's nonsense. As a conservative, I can at least say that I know most liberals mean well. If they only used reason to back up their intentions then they could stop being impediments to the rise in the standards of living for countless Americans. But to liberals, conservatives only want "millionaires and billionaires" to get tax cuts and to not have to "pay their fair share." This is also nonsense. And it continues to remain nonsense no matter how many times Obama says it. But demonizing the adults in the room serves to win over the support of the previously-mentioned ignorant Americans who go on to vote for their own narrow self-interest at the expense of the nation's long-term well-being.
Their plan is simply, sadly, to attack the successful, those who work hard, who build businesses, and who, without government force being applied, give back whether they intend to or not. Men and women who build their business also help build communities. They open doors to not only the paycheck a job brings, but also doors to benefits, health insurance and saving for retirement. They also provide, while intangible, something just as important as the paycheck and benefits: the honor and the fulfillment of the internal need inside that can be found only in performing honest labor.
You also can't credibly ignore the fact that the infrastructure Obama praises was bought and paid for by those very business owners and their employees through their tax dollars. You can't credibly ignore the fact that, while obviously they had help along the way, business owners had the idea, took the risk, worked the hours and made something happen. You can't credibly ignore the fact that most of us would still be farmers working our own land were it not for the benefits business owners and risk takers and capitalists who, hand-in-hand with labor, made America what it is today. You can't credibly ignore the fact that government also played a small part this story. But to slap these innovators in the face by implying, as Obama clearly does, that somehow it is government that is the real engine that drives this success is, at best, to be grossly misinformed.
And very divisive.
But the most divisive part of Obama's speech, and perhaps I should say most shocking as well, can be found in these lines: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
This from the man who used the word "I" more than 100 times in his Roanoke speech. This from the man who, during his time in the Senate, produced nothing of note. This from the man who owes his election not to his own talent and non-existent record but rather to the happenstance of being at the right places at the right times. This from the Nobel Peace Prize winner who, in the committee's own press release, sites only Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" without any actual results to point to.
The one thing Obama actually does do well is speak, and it's a talent he misuses in his effort to insult the men and women who make up the backbone of this great nation. His words are an attack upon the very soul of capitalism, perhaps born in the realization of mediocrity and in the jealousy and envy of what he himself cannot achieve, or perhaps cannot achieve without special consideration due to factors other than his talent. Much has been given to him, unearned, and therefore much must be given to others to validate his own lack of personal achievement. If this, perhaps, isn't his own intent, it most certainly is for many of those who vote for him: the give-to-me, protect-me, take-care-of-me permanent voting block created by the grossly misnamed "Great Society" programs.
Perhaps this collective nonsense Obama pushes is his out for the one thing he most certainly did "make happen" but doesn't want to claim as his own: a disastrous, failed presidency as empty of achievement as the modern liberal philosophy that spawned it.
Jeff O'Bryant is the author of "Up into the Hills – A Brief History of Catoosa County" and holds two degrees: a bachelor's in education and a bachelor's with honors in history. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You have
stories left before being redirected to Clickshare to login or register.
Wolfeboro Friends to present 'The Piano Men' concert
Saturday, September 29, 2012
WOLFEBORO — At 7:30 on Saturday evening, Oct. 13, on the expansive stage of the Kingswood Arts Center, 21 McManus Road, "The Piano Men" will tour the songs that Elton John and Billy Joel originated during the 1970s decade. |


text:
Our Australian Cookbooks by authors Vic Cherikoff and Benjamin Christie are the leading cookbooks on native Australian ingredients and cuisine in the world.
For your next gift idea, why not give a Cookbook and Seasoning set for the chef in your life.
Unfortunately, at this stage, our best selling book, The Bushfood Handbook is now out of print.
Lastly, please note that for domestic sales in Australia, we add GST to the given cost of non-food items such as our books.
- Australian Cookbooks
- BBQ Hot Sheet
- Chefs/Manufacturers->
- ebooks
- Fruit Confit
- Hampers and Packages
- Herbal-Active®
- Herbs, Spices and Seasonings
- Infused oils, paperbark etc
- Kakadu Complex®
- Kakadu Wild Weightloss Way kit
- Sauces, syrups, preserves
- Skews®
- Wattleseed
- New Products ...
- Featured Products ...
- All Products ...


text:
News & Analysis
GUI and User experience is able to influence consumer. The user experience that ...
Not a chance. Too little too late. Android became so dominant because it is free ...
Android powers 75% of smartphones in Q3
Dylan McGrath
Four years since the first Android-powered smartphones hit store shelves, Android has risen rapidly to become far-and-away the dominant OS in smartphones. Apple Inc.'s iOS, which runs the company's line of iPhones, was a distant second in the third quarter with 15 percent market share, according to IDC.
According to IDC, the number of Android-powered smartphones in the third quarter reached 136 million units, up 92 percent from the third quarter of 2011. Android's market share increased from 58 percent in the third quarter of 2011, IDC said.
"Android has been one of the primary growth engines of the smartphone market since it was launched in 2008," said Ramon Llamas, research manager for mobile phones at IDC, in a statement. "In every year since then, Android has effectively outpaced the market and taken market share from the competition."
Click on image to enlarge.
Llamas said the combination of smartphone vendors, mobile operators and end-users who have embraced Android continues to drive shipment volumes higher. "Even today, more vendors are introducing their first Android-powered smartphones to market," he said.
Overall, about 181 million smartphones shipped in the third quarter, IDC said. Androids 92 percent year-over-year growth was nearly double the overall market growth rate of 47 percent, IDC said.
Next: No coincidence
That, and the fact that there isn't really a viable alternative aside from iOS...
Let's see if that share decreases once Windows Phone 8 becomes a credible competitor.
Not a chance. Too little too late. Android became so dominant because it is free to the handset makers. Win8 has no reason to exist and will be a failure. And as I have said here a number of times Apple is on its way to a niche player a decade from now. It is Windows vs Mac all over again and the outcome will be the same for the same reasons
GUI and User experience is able to influence consumer. The user experience that Windows 8 brought on the table may be able to create enough momentum to get a reasonable amount of shares of the pie. Who knows! At the end, there are die-hard Apple fans; there must be die-hard MS fans.


text:
Regular contributor at the UK-based men's online fashion blogs FashionBeans.com and wardrobewarrior.co.uk, Alex Woodhall is one stylishly busy writer. He took some time out of his schedule to create a guest blog post for us devoted to his picks for this summer's best menswear trends. We want our male readers to look divinely fashionable this season, so pay attention to Alex's wardrobe makeover tips for the styles of the season.
Here's what Alex had to say:
As summer draws ever nearer, it's around that time where your spring summer wardrobe begins to make an appearance; shorts are reinstated having been shelved. and lighter fabrics fleet-foot their way to the front of the queue. Today I'm going to introduce some of the major trends hitting menswear this spring summer season.
1) Prints
It may seem a little loud at first glance and impossible to pull off at the second look, but prints are by far one of the biggest menswear trends of the season. Shirts, trousers and even blazers have been given the print treatment as polka dots, paisley, camouflage and the like look to entrench themselves into the male wardrobe for the coming season.
The easiest way to wear print successfully is to anchor it with a neutral: for example Pair paisley trousers with a plain shirt and blazer or trench to avoid clashes. Similarly if you wanted to rock a polka-dot top, neutralize the pattern with some plain trousers in a safe color like grey or navy.
2) Double-Print
The alternative to playing it safe with an anchoring neutral, is to brave double prints. This is definitely not one for the novice and requires a lot of confidence in yourself and your look. Essentially you don't need to worry about clashing prints but should be aware of complimenting colors, you can make the look easier to pull off by opting for smaller prints such rather than 'go big or go home' tribal inspired patterns, like those seen at Burberry Prorsum SS12.
I'd also fully recommend easing yourself into the trend with some accessories. A bold scarf, bag, tie or even pocket square is an easy, subtle way to incorporate a variety of prints into your outfit.
3) Double-Breasted
Make yours a double this season with tailoring reminiscent of the power-dressing 80s. Forget wide shoulders and unflattering flares, a modern DB should be slim cut and with softer shoulders. The beauty of double-breasted is that, yes it is currently trending but it is also timelessly stylish and will always look sharp. Accessorize with a pocket square and possibly a lapel pin for the authentic sartorial effort.
4) Blue
Yes blue, the color which adorned the walls of the bedroom and clothes of your new-born-self. It may rouse up the debate prints do but blue has potential to be as loud or toned down as you want it to be and can be used to create some great outfits.
An all blue outfit created through tonal shades is the best way to rock this trend and when combined with tailoring it creates a really sharp look. GQ dressed Ewan McGregor in a couple of all blue outfits in their January issue showing you how to rock this trend in the best way.
Tell us, which of these wardrobe makeover trends will you be trying here in New York City? If you have any questions, you can always tweet us at @NewYorkImage or follow Alex at @AlexWoodhall.
Until next time!


text:
Seattle learned this past week that the NBA doesn't quite follow the rules of a market economy. For Seattle to get the Kings, the other 29 owners had to approve the deal. And when the dust settled, a majority of those owners thought an inferior bid to keep the team in Sacramento was preferred.
Below is my first round list, complete with team, fit & what they're most likely yearbook superlative would be. I apologize in advance.
I ask you, fans across America and around the world, to root for Memphis -- both the Grizzlies team and the city. Maybe a Grizzlies championship can provide just the "grits" this Southern city needs.
This question originally appeared on Quora. Answer by John...
We make 70 important decisions per day and our 'lead organ' makes us who we are.
Irina Pavlova may be President of Onexim Sports & Entertainment, the principal owner of the Brooklyn Nets, but she's just as committed to her role in PeacePlayers International. PeacePlayers brings communities in conflict together to play basketball as a way to build a more peaceful world.
Stop with the whole, "Why is it OK to make fun of Tim Tebow for being a good Christian but we commend Jason Collins for being gay?" thing. When Tim Tebow can legally get fired in 29 states simply for being a Christian, then we'll talk.
On April 28, Collins was a respected journeyman backup center. On April 29, he found stardom in the hard and brave act of becoming a hero and role model for sexual minority youth. Lighting a path for others - few stars shine brighter than that.
Jackie Robinson knew that his behavior and his alone could determine for the league and for the country whether or not blacks and whites would ever be able to assemble together. He had to be unflappable.
Maybe all the outbursts are doing us a favor by allowing us to understand and address homophobia. But the outbursts can only be helpful if they are taken seriously and not dismissed or censored by the outrage police.
My friend and excellent mom Jess has a great analytical basketball mind. She wrote this guest post this morning. Pacers-Knicks Discuss - George or ...
The professional sports world has been waiting for a Jason Collins moment: a gay athlete currently playing in a major league who comes out publicly. What you may not know is that many had hoped that the moment would star an African-American male.
Every double foul, ridiculous flagrant and soft technical that these officials call makes me sick to my stomach. This isn't playoff basketball, it's kindergarten basketball.
I am applauding Jason Collins today. More importantly I am providing a standing ovation to his twin brother, Jarron Collins, for his acceptance for who Jason is to him.
NBA basketball player Jason Collins swept sports headlines this week when he publicly revealed that he is gay, becoming the first professional male at...
This question originally appeared on Quora. Answer by Jason...


text:
Thu, May 10, 2012
Six Able Flight scholarship winners will arrive at Purdue University in Indiana on May 19th to begin five weeks of intensive flight and ground training; an experience that will change their lives forever. The six men come from all over the country, and though their disabilities and challenges may be varied, they share the common goal of becoming a pilot.
The scholarship winners will live in university housing and be trained by university graduate students at Purdue's towered airport (KLAF). Able Flight's Charles Stites said, "This is the third annual Able Flight-Purdue University training program, and the partnership has been wonderful for our students and for the university. Working with a world class aviation program offers our pilots the best training possible, and the university benefits from being able to expand their training to include people with disabilities."
The partnership has grown steadily since two students participated in 2010 and four in 2011. With six attending this year, it has increased the demands on both Able Flight and Purdue. According to Stites, "Using our two students per plane formula, this year we will provide three airplanes; two from Hansen Air Group of Atlanta and one from Philly Sport Pilot of Wilmington, Delaware. With one instructor per student, the university is now selecting six instructors so that each pilot can fly up to twice a day during their training."
The six scholarship recipients to train at Purdue are:
Able Flight, a national nonprofit that provides flight and career training opportunities for people with physical disabilities, is the only one of its kind in the United States. Since 2006 it has awarded over 40 flight and aviation career training scholarships.
Airborne 05.24.13: FAA To EAA: PAY UP!, PC-24 Unveiled, Cessna JT-A 1st Production Flight
Airborne 05.21.13: Cirrus Chute Fails, NASA Record, More NIMBY Nonsense
Airborne 05.17.13: X-47B Carrier Launch, New Base For CAF, Space Oddity... For Real!
See All
Solar Impulse in Big D wit Published: Fri, May 24 2013
The FAA Wants The EAA to P Published: Thu, May 23 2013
Ride Sally Ride – Re Published: Wed, May 22 2013
© 2007 - 2013 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC


text:
What's the most kind of used team right now (xwish, Mono, HO)?
Question about the Indianapolis stuff which I guess is the national tournament:
Will someone who hasn't qualified be able to compete as if it was one of the regional tournaments?
I'm part of the staff at Project Pokemon! Smod in forums, AOP in IRC, Administrator on Shoddy. Come visit us. Our Project is Pokemon!
Rain is technically a type due to its dominance and that rain teams follow 1 of to strategies or both. The first is rain stall which is common in singles due to pokemon like Ludicolo, Vaporeon, and Tentacruel not to mention support Politoed. those teams try to use toxic and average damaging attacks to stall out the opponent along with protect, leftovers, and Vaporeon's hydration rest combo. The other is offensive rain which uses faster attacking based pokemon such as Jolteon, Starmie, boosting Ludicolo, choice specs Politoed, Rain based Dragonite, Keldeo, Thunderus-t, and Tornadus(both forms) to overpower the opponent with sheer force through their boosted stab moves whether its thunder or hurricane with its boosted accuracy, or hydropump/surf/scald with its boosted power. The rain stall is popular in singles due to the slower playstyle in singles while the offensive rain is more popular in double since swift swim is not seen as broken and that stall doesn't work as well in doubles.
Voltturn is good in single and is helpful in doubles as it allows the user to keep up on the offensive while protecting his or her pokemon from enemy attact by switching in a pokemon that is resistant towards them. A popular team in doubles is trick room due to its ability to stop speed based offensive team by using trickroom to allow the teams bulky and stronger attackers to move first despite their low speed.
I personally use a Voltturn rain team that is split for both stall and offense with several of the pokemon filling both roles(bulky choicebanded scizor, special sweeping Tornadus(not therian the other), special offensive bulky Dragonite, and Rotom-C for handeling Swampert and Gastrodon with an alternate for either doubles or triples being dragon dance Gyarados for singles or dragon dance Kingdra/Sword dance Armaldo for double(I couldn't resist having an option to sweep people in doubles after any major threats are removed.))
Rain also lets pokemon like Scizor and Ferrothorn overcome their 4x weakness to fire attacks once(provided the attacks is not boosted or stab and that the pokemon being hit is at full health) and it allows Skarmory and Jirachi to pretty much ignore their fire weakness. Another benefit is that 100% accurate thunder and hurricane is never easy to tank letting rain teams trample over anything that tries to stop them.
3 things to mention
1. The argument is about which is more common male or female
2. Lopunny uses Klutz to use Switcharoo on the opponent to steal their helpful item(that they usually need to function) and give them one that either:
A. Locks them into a move(Choice items.)
B. Renders the weak to a previous immunity(target ring for typing or iron ball for flying typing or levitate.)
C. inflicts a status condition or drops a stat(Iron ball, Macho brace or the power items to drop speed or Toxic/Flame orb to poison or burn respectively)
3. Attract status has a 50% of stopping the opponent from attacking on any turn while Paralysis has a 30% chance of stopping them(although this is irrelevant since paralysis slow the opponent down so you can attempt to paraflinch them to death.)
Spoiler:- Pokemon that I can breed and trade.:
DW females not listed
0 speed IVs
Pm or VM me for a Trade.
Character BRANDON FC 3869 2640 3022
How viable is a Rash MixMence with max speed and 64 att/192 sp.att EVs?
Depends on the moves.
Specially based or not, you're probably going to want dragon dance, since 100 base speed is a tad bit too slow to take advantage of moxie and sweep with. If you don't want to use it to sweep, I'd stick with intimidate, to increase it's bulk and allow it to come in more, but that'll need stealth rock support.
Edit: Oh, mix. I misread it as moxie. Well, I've used the set before, and it was pretty good. But, of course, you're going to need a reason to use it on your team other then it's "a good set". If it's going to be the base of your team, or allow you to reliably beat some threats you have difficulty with, yes, it's good, but if not, then no.
Sets listed on Smogon are almost always viable, except when they're outdated. When using a set from there, the most important thing to look at is how would it help your team in specific.
Last edited by Zachmac; 22nd December 2012 at 8:12 PM.
I've been trying to form a team, but I'm having trouble with it. I currently have scarfed jirachi, def skarm, sdef gastro and heatran, and cm latias. i ve been having trouble picking the last member:between sd techniloom, bulky sd techniloom, or rapid spin hitmontop, or some sort of offensive herracross. While the former two and heracross are powerful and give me the ability to punch holes, hitmontop can do the same and provide support (although he lacks spore, other key resistances, and more firepower). So who should I choose to help me on my team? I would post this on rmt, but its not quite ready yet.
Spoiler:- Currently seeking::
I will offer very well if you have any of these
Black FC- 1377 6936 4444
Platinum FC- 4856 6947 4507
Edit: sorry, somehow i ended up double posting the same message
Last edited by hotcoldyay; 23rd December 2012 at 2:43 AM.
Spoiler:- Currently seeking::
I will offer very well if you have any of these
Black FC- 1377 6936 4444
Platinum FC- 4856 6947 4507
Well, you've correctly identified the fact that you need a Fighting-type sweeper, which is good. However, you aren't particularly hurt by entry hazards, so I wouldn't recommend Hitmontop or Heracross. Heracross isn't even that good in UU in my experience, let alone OU.
I would recommend a Terrakion. It will give you all the power and coverage you need, but with a bit more immediacy than a Breloom. Almost all of your team is bulky or straight up defensive, so a fast, powerful sweeper like this will mix well.
If it absolutely must be one of the things you listed, then one of the two Breloom sets; probably Techniloom, but that's just my guess.
New signature under construction.
No longer doing DWF trades.
thanks so much for the advice i tested out a few fights with CB terrakion, and it has been working fantastically... im also going to try out SR terrakion and see if that works.
Edit: thanks again support terrakion is doing even better, being its an easy suicide lead to use
Edit #2: ive been meaning to ask this. Which bold natured volcarona set is more efficient for a bulky booster? I plan on using this on my other team (sun): 144hp/252 def/112 spe or 248 hp/216 def/52 spe?
Last edited by hotcoldyay; 23rd December 2012 at 6:36 AM.
Spoiler:- Currently seeking::
I will offer very well if you have any of these
Black FC- 1377 6936 4444
Platinum FC- 4856 6947 4507
I've never used this set before, so I can only regurgitate what others who have say, but the standard set for a Bold-natured boosting set is this.
Volcarona @ Leftovers
Nature: Bold
EVs: 240 HP / 216 Def / 52 Spe
~ Quiver Dance
~ Fiery Dance
~ Bug Buzz
~ Roost
That looks like a pretty solid way to run it though. The moves definitely wouldn't change; the only thing that would change would be the EVs.
New signature under construction.
No longer doing DWF trades.
Spoiler:- Currently seeking::
I will offer very well if you have any of these
Black FC- 1377 6936 4444
Platinum FC- 4856 6947 4507
Edit: ignore this, i found s comfortable solution for now
Last edited by hotcoldyay; 24th December 2012 at 7:24 AM.
Spoiler:- Currently seeking::
I will offer very well if you have any of these
Black FC- 1377 6936 4444
Platinum FC- 4856 6947 4507
So I've been EV training some pokes and based on where there it feels like their stats aren't going in the right direction.... whats the best way to EV train a poke from level 1?
Epic trades for you!
Black 2: 4857 4837 4412
Looking for:
Please if you want any of these and more just PM me!
Current Shinies:
Shiny Hunt:
Current Challenges
LeafGreen Nuzlocke
Current team:
Yes. There's nothing stopping a Steel-type from receiving a Poison or Bad Poison condition, it's just that they're immune to Poison-type moves. If a non-Poison-type move was used to poison it or it lost that immunity to Poison, it could definitely be poisoned.
Find a wild Pokemon of such a level that yours can beat and that gives the type of EVs you want and beat it. What specifically is the problem? Keep in mind that you won't immediately see the results of EV training like you could in previous generations. If you earn 12 EVs in a stat over the course of one level, it isn't guaranteed to result in +3 in the stat. EVs are amortized such that there are no big, instant boosts like that, but instead your Pokemon will reach a set target stat by the time it reaches Level 100.
New signature under construction.
No longer doing DWF trades.
Hello recently i was made aware of a rather interesting rule called the sleeping clause?
Im a bug trainer right, now why is it deemed " illegal" to use my 100% legit venomoth in an OU match and then put all their pokemon to sleep..
Please someone tell me why! I simply do no understand the reasoning's behind this and need to no..
How does a harmless venomoth, in OU, become a massive threat because all of a sudden it has the capability of using sleep powder on multiple targets.
Like, what possible scenario created this rule?
What possible outcome caused such an injustice or, unfair play that the sleeping clause needed to be implemented?
It would be greatly appreciated if someone answered some of my questions cause i'm kinda stunned atm and i need to understand..
Please don't take this as a rant or rave or whatever, these are serious questions and i am generally lost for words and can not comprehend this rule.
Last edited by Celestial Moth; 28th December 2012 at 6:51 AM.
Dont forget to eat your devil fruit now children.
By putting all of your opponent's pokemon to sleep in the older games you rendered them nearly completely useless allowing you to set up without problem. Smeagle was and still is the greatest abuser thanks to its access to baton pass, spore which the only 100% accurate sleep move in the game, and every boosting move in the game. In the newest games the sleep counter resets whenever the sleeping pokemon swaps so if a person puts the enemies entire team to sleep they can use boosting moves and phazing moves to keep the opponent asleep until they baton pass to their sweeper who well ko everything in 1 hit this was and still is considered very cheap and people could also use the new sleep mechanic to phaze out opponents and use stealth rock, spikes and toxic spikes to win. Because of that smogon and other competitive groups decided to restrict the use of sleep moves instead of banning them which if they had banned them that would have made many pokemon nearly completely useless.
If they did not restrict sleep then every team seen on smogon or other groups would be sleep/set up or sleep/phazing teams due to them being over powered.
How sleep clause works with smogon is that you lose the moment you put the 2 pokemon on the enemy team to sleep unless they use a choice item/trick combo, the move encore, or you have the choice item and they trap you pokemon with mean look, spider web, block, shadow tag, or arena trap to force you to put their pokemon asleep. if however they use rest and you haven't put any of their pokemon to sleep and the switch or if its a double battle then you can put 1 of their pokemon asleep
Last edited by redcharzard; 28th December 2012 at 2:37 PM.
Spoiler:- Pokemon that I can breed and trade.:
DW females not listed
0 speed IVs
Pm or VM me for a Trade.
Character BRANDON FC 3869 2640 3022