Results of first pornography poll

[_Drifting]

Just Me,

Is "pan sexual" where you have an unhealthy attraction for kitchenware?

[_just me]

Just Me,

Is "pan sexual" where you have an unhealthy attraction for kitchenware?

Copper bottom skillets are hot.

[_Droopy]

I've never called you gay, Droopy, but I think a philosophical defense of homosexuality is pretty easy. Gay people are gay.

This, of course, is not a "philosophical defense" of anything, but only a claim that no philosophical defense or criticism is possible. Anyone who claims that certain things, and especially core elements of the human condition, "just are," is simply throwing up their hands and walking away from the arena of ideas, either in fear of that arena, or because they are so shallow they have no philosophical interest in the questions of existence and what it means to be human in a mortal context.

They're born that way (oodles of scientific data supporting that). It's another natural, human condition that does not need to be vilified.

There is no scientific data whatsoever supporting that claim, and all the previous studies attempting to support the "born that way" argument have been long, long discredited (the LaVey studies didn't get too far past the drying of the ink).

You should consider crusading against something that is an evil. Maybe bigotry.

Just an ad hominem cop out, similar to your "gay people are just gay" metaphysical (or biological) absolutism above, that provides an escape valve in lieu of hard thinking.

[_Droopy]

Hmmm. Kinda like how you've called me a pansexual hedonist? Which, by the way, I don't think you ever answered me when I asked what definition you are using for the term "pansexual."

No. Pansexual hedonism means a philosophy of life, and could also mean a lifestyle, but I never accused you of engaging in any lifestyle, only in supporting others who do (Romans 1:32).

Here is what I have found on the term. Just let me know how you are using it. http://dating.about.com/od/glossaryword ... sexual.htm

Definition:
The term pansexual can take on a variety of different meanings depending on which social group the term is being used in, but it is generally defined as someone who is attracted to other people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. The word pansexual is used as an inclusive term as opposed to bisexual, as bisexuality only refers to people liking both men and women, and does not including a wider variety of gender neutral or gender fluid terminology.

Pansexual can also refer to an organization, event or group. In this situation, the pansexual is defined as meaning open or welcome to all genders and not referencing one's sexual orientation or gender.

Occasionally, pansexuality is defined as a person who displays their sexuality in many different ways, or as someone who is open to a variety of sexual activities, although both of these definitions have become rare.

None of these, in particular. I am using the term to indicate a cast of mind, attitude, Zeitgeist, and philosophy of life that has become common and accepted since the late sixties. Also included here would be "someone who is attracted to other people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation" and " a person who displays their sexuality in many different ways, or as someone who is open to a variety of sexual activities," but, unless I specify it, I mean a philosophical orientation, and not actual behavior.

In your case, I mean someone who is philosophically "open to a variety of sexual activities" without necessarily desiring to personally engage in them.

You are, in other words, an excellent representation of the mind set generated and deeply rooted in the culture since the sixties under the rubric of "sexual revolution.".

[_schreech]

None of these, in particular. I am using the term to indicate a cast of mind, attitude, Zeitgeist, and philosophy of life that has become common and accepted since the late sixties. Also included here would be "someone who is attracted to other people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation" and " a person who displays their sexuality in many different ways, or as someone who is open to a variety of sexual activities," but, unless I specify it, I mean a philosophical orientation, and not actual behavior.

In your case, I mean someone who is philosophically "open to a variety of sexual activities" without necessarily desiring to personally engage in them.

You are, in other words, an excellent representation of the mind set generated and deeply rooted in the culture since the sixties under the rubric of "sexual revolution.".

I am guessing you took some sort of community college philosophy course....have you ever actually sat through a logic class at a real university or were you taught to just abuse your thesaurus in order to make yourself look "intelligent"...

[_Droopy]

I am guessing you took some sort of community college philosophy course....have you ever actually sat through a logic class at a real university or were you taught to just abuse your thesaurus in order to make yourself look "intelligent"...

In other words, Schreech, you're way in over your head with me and you know it, and need to depreciate me in order for you to regain psychological homeostasis regarding your own ideal image of yourself as contrasted to the reality.

I understand...

[_just me]

Droopy, I appreciate you clearing up your intentions with that label. I am a bit confused, though. You seem to be telling me that you simply applied a new meaning to a word you found.

What do you mean by Hedonist? In what way does philisophical pansexuality define the Hedonism?

I am actually very much not a Hedonist any more than you are.

It seems that perhaps you are using a label that is not really conveying that which you desire to convey.

[_schreech]

In other words, Schreech, you're way in over your head with me and you know it, and need to depreciate me in order for you to regain psychological homeostasis regarding your own ideal image of yourself and the reality.

I understand...

Yep...that must be it...you are way too smart for me...I don't know why i would ever try to interact with a community college philosophy grad - you and your intellectual insecurities are way beyond what i am capable of handling...sorry i "depreciated" you (lol)....you are not the loser i though you were, this post has proven that you are very sexually (and intellectually) secure...thank you for making it clear that i am nothing compared to you and your thesaurus abusing, barely coherent, UN-voluntarily-middle-aged-celibate self...Yes...I suck even though my wife just called and asked me if i want the maid or the nurse outfit tonight...lol...

[_Quasimodo]

This, of course, is not a "philosophical defense" of anything, but only a claim that no philosophical defense or criticism is possible. Anyone who claims that certain things, and especially core elements of the human condition, "just are," is simply throwing up their hands and walking away from the arena of ideas, either in fear of that arena, or because they are so shallow they have no philosophical interest in the questions of existence and what it means to be human in a mortal context.

You might want to look up the definition of "philosophy". Especially the etymology of the word. I didn't say "just are", but I don't have a problem with that characterization as long as you include the paragraph that follows.

There is no scientific data whatsoever supporting that claim, and all the previous studies attempting to support the "born that way" argument have been long, long discredited (the LaVey studies didn't get too far past the drying of the ink).

This is, of course, pure horse biscuits. If you have a love of philosophy, you should be more careful with how you stretch the truth. A nice little article from a few years ago that might help to catch you up:

http://www.salon.com/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/

Simon LeVay's (it's spelled "LeVay" by the way) work was done in the early 1990's. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Most accredited studies these days show either a DNA connection to homosexuality or a pre-natal hormonal influence. Both of which argue for homosexuality at birth.

Just an ad hominem cop out, similar to your "gay people are just gay" metaphysical (or biological) absolutism above, that provides an escape valve in lieu of hard thinking.

Nothing I've ever said to you could be considered "ad hominem". Maybe you should look that phrase up, as well.

You seem like an angry guy, Droopy. Your obsession with pornography and homosexuality is curious.

I'm sure that you are a good Mormon and will attain the Celestial. What is curious to me is why you would care so much about matters that will not effect your Celestial future in any way. Maybe you should give that some thought.

[_Droopy]

Yep...that must be it...

Given your smug, juvenile attack on me above based on what I wrote, I'm pretty sure that's the case.

you are way too smart for me...

I'm glad you see that now...

thank you for making it clear that i am nothing compared to you and your thesaurus abusing, barely coherent, UN-voluntarily-middle-aged-celibate self...

And thanks for showing yourself to be a textbook denizen of the Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Though I haven't been to a community college since 1985, I'm sure the remidial adult education courses you took after dropping out of High School to to grow free trade hemp in Oregon have made you more than my intellectual match.

Yes...I suck even though my wife just called and asked me if i want the maid or the nurse outfit tonight...lol...

Please join Paul, Toronto, and justme in chat for a continuation of this vignette...