RIP Boy Scouts

[liminal_luke]

18 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Luke, its the definition of hypocritical, whether you say it or not. Leave your eyebrows down.

Someone has instilled the idea in you that its fine to be -ist against white men , which it isn't, you lose the moral high ground if you're just as bad. 

 

That didn`t take long.

 

Stosh, I`m not -ist against white man so you`ve got me all wrong.  There`s actually a big difference between an all white group and an all black group, for instance, and that difference is power.  Historically disempowered groups have a legitimate interest in coming together to support each other and fight for their rights.  Country clubs limited to white men..well that`s an entirely different thing.

 

That said, I`ve nothing against groups limited to men in general.  Nothing against groups limited to German men or Irish men or other groups of men with a particular shared interest or background.  It`s only groups limited to white men that seem suspicious to me.  I`m a white man myself and don`t feel a bit bad about it, so no, I`m not prejudiced.

Edited October 18, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

 

That didn`t take long.

 

Stosh, I`m not -ist against white man so you`ve got me all wrong.  There`s actually a big difference between an all white group and an all black group, for instance, and that difference is power.  Historically disempowered groups have a legitimate interest in coming together to support each other and fight for their rights.  Country clubs limited to white men..well that`s an entirely different thing.

 

That said, I`ve nothing against groups limited to men in general.  Nothing against groups limited to German men or Irish men or other groups of men with a particular shared interest or background.  It`s only groups limited to white men that seem suspicious to me.  I`m a white man myself and don`t feel a bit bad about it, so no, I`m not prejudiced.

Its not good enough IMO to be white , and so you get some kind of pass , to resurrect that which you feel has been wrong.

It's not a different thing. Its the same thing, and if minority groups , of which white men are also , ( do the math) , want these issues to go bye bye, then the issues have to be dropped , not preserved with reverse role positions. 

The thing that moves ahead the cause of any of these groups, is not the preservation of the group, but the dissolution of them,

not teamed up enmity , but a desire to be principled and just. You undermine that, and you undermine the resolution, of that which you find repugnant. *( I presume) 

[liminal_luke]

3 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

It's not a different thing. 

 

Is so!

 

Whew, that felt good.  If you chose to reply to this post, I`ll let you have the last word.  These kind of things can go on forever without reaching any kind of a resolution, and who needs the hassle.

[Apech]

I think I'd go back to my earlier point about Boy Scouts and need for boys/young men to experience being and working together for their growth into maturity.  So if you apply this to race you would have to ask what is the purpose of a black group, what is the purpose of a white only group?  If we were still living under segregation or racist laws then a black group would serve the purpose for mutual support for an isolated and oppressed group.  Now the white supremacists think they are 'being replaced' and want to group for protection.  It's all pretty much fucked up - if I may use that expression.  If you allow one - under freedom of assembly - then with regret I don't see how you can't allow the other.

 

 

[rene]

25 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

That didn`t take long.

 

Stosh, I`m not -ist against white man so you`ve got me all wrong.  There`s actually a big difference between an all white group and an all black group, for instance, and that difference is power.  Historically disempowered groups have a legitimate interest in coming together to support each other and fight for their rights.  Country clubs limited to white men..well that`s an entirely different thing.

 

That said, I`ve nothing against groups limited to men in general.  Nothing against groups limited to German men or Irish men or other groups of men with a particular shared interest or background.  It`s only groups limited to white men that seem suspicious to me.  I`m a white man myself and don`t feel a bit bad about it, so no, I`m not prejudiced.

 

14 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Its not good enough IMO to be white , and so you get some kind of pass , to resurrect that which you feel has been wrong.

It's not a different thing. Its the same thing, and if minority groups , of which white men are also , ( do the math) , want these issues to go bye bye, then the issues have to be dropped , not preserved with reverse role positions. 

The thing that moves ahead the cause of any of these groups, is not the preservation of the group, but the dissolution of them,

not teamed up enmity , but a desire to be principled and just. You undermine that, and you undermine the resolution, of that which you find repugnant. *( I presume) 

 

8 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Is so!

 

Whew, that felt good.  If you chose to reply to this post, I`ll let you have the last word.  These kind of things can go on forever without reaching any kind of a resolution, and who needs the hassle.

 

Yes, they can go on forever, and no resolution can be reached. Until - everyone, and I mean everyone, can let it all go.

 

Blacks need to stop thinking all whites are racist/against them. Whites need to stop thinking blacks are racist/against them.

There is a lot of bad history, to let go of. On both sides. As long as it's kept alive, by whomever and for whatever reason, it will never end. And there are lots of folks who want to keep this going. Black and white. Much money/power to be made in the conflict.

 

All we can do, imo, is to do the best we can - without pre-judging folks as a group - and look into the eyes of the individual. Lots of shit out there. Lots of really good, too. If we can let ourselves see it.

 

Perpetual IMO applied.

 

 

 

[rene]

55 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I wonder if you`d be open to consider my point of view?

 

Behavior, I agree, is a choice.  Assuming willing sex partners are available, you could chose to have sex with a man or a woman or both.  So could I.  Doesn`t mean we`d necessarily like it in all cases, but it could be done.  If you`re talking only about sexual behaior, we totally agree.  

 

Attraction itself is another thing. You`ve made it very clear over the years that you are strongly and exclusively attracted to women.  This attraction seems to be deep and natural for you: you see an attractive woman in a skimpy bikini walking along the beach, you feel attracted.  Now, here`s my question: if you really wanted to (and I know you don`t) do you think you could chose to stop being attracted to that beautiful woman?  Could you turn off your heterosexual libido just by willing it away?  Let`s take it a step further...could you decide instead to become attracted to an attractive man in a speedo?

 

I`m guessing you could do none of these things.  What I`m hoping you`ll consider is this: gay people can no more change who they are attracted to than you can.  They could chose not to have gay sex, but they can`t chose not to be attracted to the same gender.  You could chose not to have heterosexual sex, but you can`t chose not to be attracted to women. 

 

I speak to you from my own experience.  

 

 

 

Luke, that was really well explained. Well met. (-:

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

I dunno, Windwalker.  What does identifying as black even mean?  It`s all so confusing. 

 

 

Try asking a black person I'm sure they can help you with your confusion.

[cold]

Fair is fair.

 

I had two scales for weighing produce. Oddly enough not requirement for either commercial or retail sales.

Commercial or wholesale one used the industry standard packaging (for example a 20 lb. box that stated: Tomatoes 20 pounds. )

So for a commercial sales you just filled the box (overtime it would average 20 lbs).

 

However if you used a scale in a retail setting it was subject to a required inspections.

My mechanical scale was adjustable a screw set the tension so when tray was empty = 0.

After a dozen years or so my much more expensive electronic scale read in error.

 

And even though the error was in the buyers favor it was not allowed.

Yup, the buyer could be getting anywhere from a small to a large price break should that scale be allowed in commerce.

Of course it wasn't.

 

Fair is fair unless its not applied across the board.

 

Earlier Marblehead wrote:

 

"Won't be long before they will be integrating the YMCA  and YWCA"

 

From the YMCA web site:

 

"In 1853 in Washington, D.C. the YMCA for African Americans was founded by Anthony Bowen, a freed slave."

"In San Francisco, YMCAs serving Asians were established in 1875 to serve the large Chinese population there, and a Japanese YMCA was founded in 1917."

"In 1910 , 25 African American YMCAs were built in 23 cities ...."

 

Separate but equal facilities? I suppose depending upon local laws at the time.

 

According to Wikipedia women first began coming to YMCA  facilities in the 1970;s 

And the YMCA appointed Violet King Henry to Executive Director of the National Council of YMCA's Organization Development Group, making her the first women to a senior management position with the American YMCA in 1976.

 

From the YWCA website :

"As one of the oldest and largest womens  organization in the nation ..."

No statement of male inclusion? Leading me to think what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

 

Feel up to making history Marblehead?

LOL

 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by cold
gander to goose & clarity

[liminal_luke]

4 hours ago, windwalker said:

 

 

Try asking a black person I'm sure they can help you with your confusion.

 

This feels snarky and contemptuous to me.  Did you mean it that way?

 

Your suggestion, though, is actually a good one.  (Where`s Hancock when you need him?)  My sense is that there is no single sense for what identifying as black means, that different people experience their blackness differently.  Often, as with my partially black friends, there`s some ambivilence about being black or white (or rather, too black or too white).  Consider that there`s a show called "Blackish."  Also, the whole "oreo" phenomenon of some blacks thinking other blacks "act white."  

 

If there are black people on the board who feel like speaking to the question of black identity, I think that would be an interesting conversation.

 

 

[Marblehead]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

 

Guess you changed your mind? 

No, didn't change my mind.  Psychological traits are different from instincts.

 

 

[windwalker]

Just now, liminal_luke said:

If there are black people on the board who feel like speaking to the question of black identity, I think that would be an interesting conversation.

 

I meant what I said,  how you process it is reflected in your mind.

 

Yes you seem to be a little confused.....

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

No, didn't change my mind.  Psychological traits are different from instincts.

 

 

To add to that:

 

Biological facts at different from personal preferences.

 

[Marblehead]

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I wonder if you`d be open to consider my point of view?

 

Hi Luke,

 

Yes, I have considered those aspects of life.  I have no valid argument against what you said nor any counter answers to your questions.

 

But remember, I am not judging here; only voicing an alternate perspective.  One that I hold to.  

 

If you get old enough your won't even think about sex any more.

 

[TheWhiteRabbit]

5 hours ago, rene said:

 

Me too...but it raises some interesting (rhetorical) questions. Are whites/blacks/etc only groups then  deemed racist? Is a no-Gays group homophobic? Is a Gay-only group heterophobic?

 

Maybe our default position is valid... and the raison d'etre of the individual group determines appropriateness.

 

 

I think in the Dolezal case a big part was not only the whiteness... but the deception

@rene

That has always shaped my perceptions of things.  Years ago I thought, gee some of these people are seriously maligned... We need to help them.  But in doing so... We just come full circle to understanding that each element of society as you said has it's raison d'etre.

 

So, already we have groups that are pushing against the grain en masse.  The voice they have publically is that their point must be accepted.  (Tolerance implies that Intolerance exists).  Sublimated to the highest spiritual energy of a thing in LOA is actually the want for them to be accepted.  But, as groups gain power and influence any said group becomes totalitarian in enforcing its aims.  Meaning that the secret wants they have had is to make more proselytes.  This is essentially how liberalism dies.  Once the ideas of championing the underdog has made them the alpha dog... The movement toward totalitarian goals have already been achieved.

 

So, my aims, what has never been said until now... Is this:

That all things possibly need to be challenged or protected.  Since that is not something that can be used as a LOA point of manifestation... It is simply that people need to come together to a point of unity.  That cannot be used either as an LOA point because the oppositional point exceed the ability to manifest.  Thus, one has to find a subset of ideas.  A vehicle from which all people can agree upon that is the sublimation of these ideas.

 

I agree that each motivation and political group has its own raison d'etre.  But we can see that in America "all Men are created equal and created with certain unalienable rights"  was not, or is not good enough for some groups.  Because we are still dealing with the ideas that some people could somehow be oppressed.  When in reality we all have everything we need to achieve greatness or have forgotten that.  Let me illustrate, in my pre-right ideology way by championing a cause I do not believe in.

 

Lets say for example I decide to identify as bird-kin.  The fact that many people identify with birds is a factor.  Thus bird-kin exist. The fact that bird-kin might be oppressed because some people do not identify with birds is probably a factor that could be debated.  Because people might disagree or impune things wrongly because a person takes a strong position helps identify the dichotomy that develops.  When we start to create a dichotomy of sorts, it starts to set up the failure to begin with.  That is why post-modernist thought was such a helper.  If a people or group is oppressed, we should try to alleviate that oppression.  Right?  But, this exemplifies some of the fallacies of this potential.  For each group that wins according to this subset, another will mysteriously arise to the same.  So, if we keep this in place we can't really solve the real issues because we will always have more of the same.  Post-modernist thought will always be seen to be right and constantly gratify and prove it is right with each group that is championed at each turn.  It becomes an obsession and an addiction because it provides ready and accessible emotional gratification.  Post-modernism always dictates that people who do not champion the cause of the underdog are evil and vile people.  Thus, we made something so great... Who can speak against it, even if we really wanted to find something more effective?

 

So, in the end... I took up the mantle of being specifically against that kind of thing.  Because I firmly believe that it is somehow possible to bring the world back into balance by finding something that everyone can latch on to that will unify people.  If people stay in the idea that some things oppress others, there can be no point of LOA manifestation for that.  But if people can somehow find that there are sets of doings that impress the need for success in any given endeavor... We then circumvent the need for the post-modernist school of thought.

 

The world changes constantly.  Every day, we see that much hard and fast rules that we held to... Have easily proved futile.  But, the more people are realizing that the false dichotomies we use only serve themselves as a vehicle for oppression rather than the specific groups themselves.  The closer humanity is to understanding this failing in impeding and stifling the manifestation helps us find a better vehicle and point of manifestation for alleviating suffering.

[liminal_luke]

31 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Yes you seem to be a little confused.....

 

Actually, no.  I`m not so confused.  I just have a bad habit of thinking of other Bums as my friends and talking to them as my friends.  Some people are friendly, of course, but others approach conversation like a boxing match and are quick to exploit any perceived weakness.  If I don`t want to be treated like a punching bag, I shouldn`t even hint at the possibility of finding anything confusing.  Lesson learned, I guess.

Edited October 18, 2017 by liminal_luke

[TheWhiteRabbit]

2 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Actually, no.  I`m not so confused.  I just have a bad habit of thinking of other Bums as my friends and talking to them as my friends.  Some people are friendly, of course, but others approach conversation like a boxing match and are quick to exploit any perceied weakness.  If I don`t want to be treated like a punching bag, I shouldn`t even hint at the possibility of finding anything confusing.  Lesson learned, I guess.

You are not a punching bag.  We are not treating you like a punching bag.

 

Simple.  Your words and you position are not you, or yourself.  Most conversation on here is pretty much like that.  I imagine there may be some people who just think of it in terms of people.  But, just because they disagree does not mean that they are not your friends.  I mean, people like me do take very strong positions on things.  In fact, some of peoples views are deeply involved in very personal experiences that have developed over a very long time.

 

I sympathize with you because some peoples attachments to their views or ideas are very strong.  But, just because they are willing to talk about their ideas still means they want to interact with you which means that they care enough about you to do so.  If you see people stop talking or conversing, it is much like overpetting a cat.  The cat becomes frustrated and rrreeoow!  So, likely people become tired of some types of conversation as well.

 

So, pet your friends.  Just don't overpet.  rrreeoow!

[rene]

17 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Actually, no.  I`m not so confused.  I just have a bad habit of thinking of other Bums as my friends and talking to them as my friends.  Some people are friendly, of course, but others approach conversation like a boxing match and are quick to exploit any perceived weakness.  If I don`t want to be treated like a punching bag, I shouldn`t even hint at the possibility of finding anything confusing.  Lesson learned, I guess.

 

Or.... you could keep being who you are, and just don't reply to those folks, heh. Not every post needs a reply; not every question needs an answer.

 

Grandpa use to say: It takes two old women to fight and one stick wont burn.

[liminal_luke]

15 minutes ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

 

Simple.  Your words and you position are not you, or yourself. 

 

This thread started out about the Boy Scouts, and now somehow I`m talking about me.  Funny how that happens.  Perhaps it`s time to leave the world of trans issues, gay issues, and Luke issues and get back to scouting?

 

I do like what you say though, White Rabbit, about how we are not our positions.  Very true.  At the same time, it does seem to me that people sometimes attack other people (sometimes in ways that attract moderator attention, at other times in more subtle -- but no less nefarious -- ways).    

 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Marblehead]

Back to scouting.

 

I joined the scouts but my parents couldn't afford to buy me a uniform.  All the other boys had a uniform.  I felt like an outcast so I stopped going.

 

[Stosh]

41 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

This thread started out about the Boy Scouts, and now somehow I`m talking about me.  Funny how that happens.  Perhaps it`s time to leave the world of trans issues, gay issues, and Luke issues and get back to scouting?

 

I do like what you say though, White Rabbit, about how we are not our positions.  Very true.  At the same time, it does seem to me that people sometimes attack other people (sometimes in ways that attract moderator attention, at other times in more subtle -- but no less nefarious -- ways).    

 

 

There is always some kind of attempt to prevail, there is also , rarely, hostility.... though its not the norm , so its best not to conflate the two. Imo

[gendao]

Our planet's magnetic poles are weakening and shifting.  So, you see the same gender weakening (androgynization), role/pole-reversal (feminism, transgenderism, etc) amongst genders now as well.

Quote

According to scientists' best estimates, the field is now weakening around 10 times faster than initially thought, losing approximately 5 percent of its strength every decade. But they don't really know why, or what that means for our planet.

Quote

Scientific researchers say there is evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field has weakened significantly in the past 160 years and that neutralization of the magnetic field and flipping of magnetic poles could occur in less than 1,000 years – or as early as the next 100 years.

Weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field, caused by gradual reverse re-alignment of iron atoms in the Earth’s liquid outer core, will lead to a reversal or flipping of Earth’s magnetic poles so that compasses point to the south instead of the north.

According to Monika Korte with the Niemegk Geomagnetic Observatory at GFZ Potsdam, Germany, “It’s not a sudden flip, but a slow process, during which the field strength becomes weak, very probably the field becomes more complex and might show more than two poles for a while, and then builds up in strength and [aligns] in the opposite direction.”

“When the polar shift happens, the Earth will have no magnetic field for about 200 years,” Jakosky said.

Quote

During a reversal the magnetic field won't be zero, but will assume a weaker and more complex form. It may fall to 10% of the present-day strength and have magnetic poles at the equator or even the simultaneous existence of multiple "north" and "south" magnetic poles.

It's all fractal...

Edited October 19, 2017 by gendao

[Stosh]

Ridiculous BS n that stuff is hurtful and ignorant. Even if it was true there would be nothing other to do than join em. Homosexuality was as present in Ancient Europe as it is now , the statistics hold true across cultures and time. Whatever the reasons may be , its not due to solar flares magnetic variation or space aliens.

[rene]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

Ridiculous BS n that stuff is hurtful and ignorant. Even if it was true there would be nothing other to do than join em. Homosexuality was as present in Ancient Europe as it is now , the statistics hold true across cultures and time. Whatever the reasons may be , its not due to solar flares magnetic variation or space aliens.

 

I don't see the connection, either.... cool links, though.

 

Maybe he's working on his Boy Scout  merit badge in Astronomy  .

 

 

 

[Stosh]

11 minutes ago, rene said:

 

I don't see the connection, either.... cool links, though.

 

Maybe he's working on his Boy Scout  merit badge in Astronomy  .

 

 

 

Its fine and interesting, I just resented the implication that Luke and others are all malfunctioning. . Hes keeping his cool in the face of considerable opposition. 

Whats he supposed to say ? Im sorry about the magnetic field ?

[Aetherous]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I just have a bad habit of thinking of other Bums as my friends and talking to them as my friends.

 

How could that ever be called a bad habit? I assert that it's good.