aaand you can be in polyamorous relationships and be REALLY HAVING A BAD FUCKING TIME because you are not, in fact, polyamorous; it's happened a bunchtree_ wrote:Gay means an attraction to a particular sex. Polyamory is the act of having multiple simultaneous relationships. Murder is the act of having killed someone. A desire for something doesn't make you the thing, by definition. I mean, having a desire to be gay doesn't make you gay, you're either gay or you're not. It's not an act. You could even have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay. You can't murder someone and not be a murderer.epilogue wrote:Cool. Now imagine that gay and polyamorous are the same.tree_ wrote:It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.epilogue wrote:You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.tree_ wrote:Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the actepilogue wrote:I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.tree_ wrote:Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?Ms Harmless wrote:that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminaltree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?
but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no
is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby
One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.
You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?
Are you not not going to watch the Oscars this year?
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13642
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
- Jorge
- NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
- Posts: 36765
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
It's more like 12 pages, you weren't really around for most of thisepilogue wrote:Aparently 74 pages is my limit.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
- tree_
- NEVER STOP JAMMING!
- Posts: 20305
- Joined: Thu April 04, 2013 6:27 am
- Location: Port Perry Lodge on voluptuous Lake Perry
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Why is it wrong to simply say you have a desire to be polyamorous or polygamous? Why the need to change definitions?epilogue wrote:Forget what you understand about contemporary definitions. And take a few days to just imagine that they are the same.tree_ wrote:Gay means an attraction to a particular sex. Polyamory is the act of having multiple simultaneous relationships. Murder is the act of having killed someone. A desire for something doesn't make you the thing, by definition. I mean, having a desire to be gay doesn't make you gay, you're either gay or you're not. It's not an act. You could even have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay. You can't murder someone and not be a murderer.epilogue wrote:Cool. Now imagine that gay and polyamorous are the same.tree_ wrote:It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.epilogue wrote:You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.tree_ wrote:Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the actepilogue wrote:I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.tree_ wrote:Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?Ms Harmless wrote:that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminaltree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?
but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no
is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby
One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.
You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I read all of it in real time. I just didn't post. I wouldn't call that "not around". Which is exactly my point. It took 74 pages for me to finally start posting in a thread where I just shouldn't be posting.Jorge wrote:It's more like 12 pages, you weren't really around for most of thisepilogue wrote:Aparently 74 pages is my limit.
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13642
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
they are not "the same", but they are both polyamoroustree_ wrote:Monogamy is a practice. You practice monogamy. One can be inclined to want to practice monogamy. They are not monogamous by default.Ms Harmless wrote:is a person with no partners because they just haven't found any, monogamous by default?tree_ wrote:It's pretty simple.. you have an impulse to murder but you don't murder, so you're not a murderer. You have an impulse to have multiple relationships but you don't, you're not actually polygamous. But if you're gay and don't act upon it, then you're still gay.epilogue wrote:You have an impulse. Society/your community/you religion/fear/perspective tells you not to act on those desires/impulses. You don't act.tree_ wrote:Oops. I agree with this. I'm trying to figure out how someone can say they are polyamorous or polygamous without actually committing the actepilogue wrote:I certainly will not speak for Ms. H but if y'all will allow an outside opinion here, I will say... yes. There are countless gay/lesbian identifying people who, for a variety of reasons, do not act on being gay/lesbian. But that's different than "murderer" which is the example you keep bringing up.tree_ wrote:Morality aside, could one correctly, technically identify as someone who does certain things who doesn’t actually do those things?Ms Harmless wrote:that's an interesting question given the number of people who'd say someone with a criminal desire should already be condemned as a criminaltree_ wrote:So, are you telling me that I could identify as a murderer without ever actually attempting to murder anyone?
but in any case, again, is it OK to murder? no
is it OK to "go outside a monogamous relationship"? potentially, yes, let's talk about baby
One can imagine killing a person and never kill a person. This person is not and should not be defined as a murderer. However, a person can be gay and not act on being gay. That person is still gay. So it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. The differential should be obvious.
You said you understand the difference between gay and murderer. How is this different for you?
- BurtReynolds
- An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
- Posts: 46239
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
- Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is page 100Jorge wrote:This thread sucks now
RM's resident disinformation expert.
- macphisto
- Gone
- Posts: 2823
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 1:03 am
- Location: August 2020 Poster of the Month
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
That toilet mouth is going to get you slapped or worse at some point. Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet. I'm worried for you.epilogue wrote:I will be better when you go fuck yourself.macphisto wrote:You lack impulse control and have a very poor temperament. Be better.epilogue wrote:Sure, it's simple: go fuck yourself.macphisto wrote:Please wokesplain it to me then. I'm here to learn.epilogue wrote:As usual, you seem to need to misreprent/misunderstand actions and consequences. Never change.macphisto wrote:If I'm polyamorous and cheat on my wife, I should be free of consequences. My sexual identity trumps any societal constructs.
Dev wrote:You're whole platform is about normalizing idiocy.
- Jorge
- NYUCK NYUCK NYUCK
- Posts: 36765
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:35 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Okay this got a big laugh out of memacphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13642
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
in trans speak: if you're a "guy" who "wants to be" a girl, are you a girl? yeah, why not? unless you decide you're not
if you're a "guy" who thinks being a guy is kind of shit actually, are you nonbinary? yeah, if you want; it's a valid nonbinary narrative
if you're a "guy" who thinks being a guy is kind of shit actually, are you nonbinary? yeah, if you want; it's a valid nonbinary narrative
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I hate to admit, same.Jorge wrote:Okay this got a big laugh out of memacphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet
- washing machine
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 15816
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 11:28 pm
- Location: Space City
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
macphisto's approach is kind of growing on me.
dimejinky99 wrote:I could destroy any ai chatbot you put in front of me. Easily.
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Ms Harmless wrote:in trans speak: if you're a "guy" who "wants to be" a girl, are you a girl? yeah, why not? unless you decide you're not
if you're a "guy" who thinks being a guy is kind of shit actually, are you nonbinary? yeah, if you want; it's a valid nonbinary narrative
- BurtReynolds
- An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
- Posts: 46239
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
- Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
The otherworld of ideas and forms certainly is fun.
RM's resident disinformation expert.
- Rob
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2889
- Joined: Fri January 04, 2013 1:46 am
- Location: Connecticut
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Lol, me too. Sorry Epilogue. This was good.Jorge wrote:Okay this got a big laugh out of memacphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I SAID IT ALSO GO A LEGIT LAUGH OUT OF MERob wrote:Lol, me too. Sorry Epilogue. This was good.Jorge wrote:Okay this got a big laugh out of memacphisto wrote:Imagine saying that to a murderer who hasn't murdered yet
- Strat
- Waiting for HVAC Repairman
- Posts: 35419
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:48 pm
- Location: Twin City Kisses
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
will smith shouldnt have slapped chris rock though
- wease
- Major Dude
- Posts: 40685
- Joined: Sat January 05, 2013 1:57 pm
- Location: Where everybody knows your name
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
Does this mean you wear ladies’ undergarments?epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.
Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing!
- C. Montgomery Burns
- C. Montgomery Burns
-
Ms Harmless
- She / Her
- Posts: 13642
- Joined: Sun January 26, 2020 12:10 pm
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/
- Location: Warwickshire, UK
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
again, my PMs are open; there are hundreds of possible words out there, it's a minefield (if "man comfortable with his femininity" feels somehow not enough)epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.
- epilogue
- We All We Got, We All We Need
- Posts: 85156
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
- Location: Ghorman
- Contact:
Re: Are you not going to watch the Oscars this year?
I do not. However, I do want desperately to wear skirts and dresses and fully admit that the only reason I don't is societal BS.wease wrote:Does this mean you wear ladies’ undergarments?epilogue wrote:As far as personal sexual identity goes, I identify as a straight male. But I also relate to and identify with women and the feminine. I've talked about this before. I am not a woman. But I am feminine. I have no idea if there is a word for that but it's where my ideology/identity rests. I used to use the word feminist but that somehow doesn't seem right either. I have no idea what the correct association/identifier is.