Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
[Continued.]

Wait for it.. I got a really good reply this one after in the next quotation. [Cue suspense, wanton anticipation. A cliff-hanger.]


[Philip has no useful comment here but felt that this part needed to be broken off]

As for the children, I wasn't really discussing Teenagers as they are developing their earlier experiences. I am making references to Jane Elliott's famous experiment school children. Here is an article on the experiment. It is a really big insight on Social Construction of identities.
OK, well I'm talking about my experience of being a teenager, and also my experience of having to help coral them in the ACF. They'd literally be off in the bushes up to all sorts if we were enclosed in a camp for more than three days. It's actually a miracle there weren't more sexual assaults now that I think about it.

Maybe we were just good at terrifying the boys into submission.

On reflection, I should probably clarify my experience in Social Construction and Identity work. I have a MSc in Social Psychology with my thesis discussing 'faces' we use in personal and private realms in regards to phenomena such as Group Polarisation, with me performing an qualitative study with 4 groups, 2 topics of Morality (Heinz dilemma, War in Afghanistan), where participants adopting more extreme positions (risky-shift) within the group. I am not randomly talking out of my ass even if I am lazy in my explanations on the topic.
That is easily the most interesting thing you've written on these boards in years.

On the discussion where you bring up the topic of sexual orientation (as a crux against me), you failed to consider my own. Would you really accuse a gay man of being a prude for not spending his time looking at girls? [insert smiley here]
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Don't worry, I don't identify as homosexual either. I am a Demisexual.
So in reply to your other comment, it isn't because I am no longer a teenage boy either. I didn't have it back then either. Oh, it is a royal a pain in the behind when it comes to relationships. How do you convey sexual attraction to initiate a relationship without it looking forced/wrong? There aren't love movies where the protagonist is essentially "After getting to know you, I have decided you are worthy of my attention and efforts and I would like to request to take this to the next level".
Honestly, this is not a great revelation to me, I more or less figured it was something like that. The fact you don't spend your time having to remember to look every "well endowed" woman in the eyes is not something I would describe as a character flaw. It is not, however, something that is especially common.

If I might observe, though, you'd do well to be more "old fashioned" and cultivate polite but friendly relationships with multiple women. The worst that can happen is that you become sufficiently interested in someone to become attracted to her and she doesn't reciprocate - at which point you're in the same boat as every other poor bastard.

Also - the Netherlands has absolutely no gentlemen left, apparently, there are some women there who are very appreciative of men who are polite and considerate. This piece of advice is useful for all Englishmen, though, and probably Canadians too.

This ties in with my disclosure 'on reflection' either where I alluded to Kohlberg's stages of moral development in the use of the Heinz Dilemma. I embrace human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism as driving forces behind morality and decision making. I find this viewpoint significantly superior and to borrow your word, sophisticated than Cloud-Guy "Making it so". You can easily see why I easily find myself identifying with the Secular Humanism movement. (even if you classify it as absurd.)


"Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras, the first Sophist.

We've had the this argument before - my observation remains the same - any claim to objective truth as regards right or wrong presupposes some "higher power" whereas any appeal purely to human reason and ethics is an appeal to utility.

I reject Utilitarianism from an ideological standpoint. Where I find Secular Humanists philosophically incoherent is their rejection of any higher power whilst still using the language and logical framework of Neo-Platonic Christian morality.

As you know, I was raised in a church environment. I used to know the bible like the back of my hand. I was very well thought of in my church community and I even keep touch with people from there still. I even got an 'adoptive' grandmother that still to this day gifts with me home-baked cookies (she is great). I have deep respect for those individuals even if we don't share beliefs.
As an intelligent child growing in their teen-age years, I asked questions and I was always left wanting, I remember my Sunday teacher once going: "That is wrong because it is wrong" Me:"But why?" Them:"You should know better than that." This grow worse as I grew older, as I found myself challenging and being challenged for views I could not support. I saw homosexuals being mistreated, people in need of help being shunned due to being 'desperate in the wrong way'. I even saw sexual abuse by 'good men', yeah, it is not just in newspaper over there in the middle of no where, it happens right under your nose.
I was even stigmatised heavily against by my devout catholic (and overall horrible person) Religious Studies teacher for being the 'wrong kind of Christian'!

It is no wonder I am an apostate, the religion is a lie. Means of control over the masses. Don't get me wrong, spirituality is an important aspect to a person, but you don't need religion to have that. You find receive it in other ways.
No, it is no wonder you are an apostate. However, just because people use religion to justify or excuse terrible things does not mean there is no God. You don't need religion to cover up abuses - all the depredations practised by the Christian Churches were also practised within the BBC, that big cuddly corporation that tells us what to think from cradle to grave.

I have absolutely no issue with you telling me about Cornish and Devon identities. I personally find the concept to be intriguing, I am happy for you to tell me more about it and listen intently.
The problem was, I wasn't conflating those identities but you repeatedly insisted at the time that I was. This is despite my explanations that I wasn't even discussing identities.

You can exchange "Cornish" and "Devonians" with pretty much any other identity. Though I disagree that you need to erase their local identities. Modify them? Possibly. I am not one for stagnation.
See, this is the thing you do that's so infuriating, really, honestly makes me want to hit you sometimes.

When you tell a Cornishman his identity is "intriguing" you belittle it, it's not intriguing, it's important and if you can't see that it's not worth his time explaining his tin mines to you. It's certainly not worth his time if you think the identity might need "modifying".

Funny how Monty thinks I'm cold when you're the one who expects everyone else to be as dispassionate about their lives as you are.

Everyone wished you well, including myself. ACIN even said about how his post on the Org was in response to you (and how you trashed him in your reply after!).
Well that's sad, really, isn't it? On multiple levels.


A sin? You are definitely taking far too much responsibility upon your shoulders!

This is Fragony! Bas! He is the live life loose and fast without a care in the world. Life of the party. A good heart even if some of his views are misplaced. He would be pleasantly mocking you for making such a statement. All he would want you to do is not worry about him and live your life to the fullest.
Who should I blame for my leaving, then? You for being impossible?

Guilt is an essential part of being a good person, if I didn't feel guilty I might get infuriated and leave again, mightn't I?

Guilt is very underrated, if people spent more time feeling guilty they'd spend more time trying not to do bad things and making up for the things they did do.


Well, I am burying regardless. Because I am a forgiving person and I dislike disliking people.
Like I said, I don't hate you - I just don't want any part of the world you want to create.

The definition of dry humour is that it doesn't have an obvious punch-line. I also tend to have a quality of doing it without a forced intention.
Face to face dry humour is delivered in a deadpan or with a wry expression - hence the need for a smiley.

I am not mocking you. I am 'throwing a spanner in the works' of your slippery-slope with some healthy ridicule. You need tp detach yourself from your statements if you took my comment personally.

An example [only an example] of insulting you as a person would be saying if I am the Federation of Plants, you are Gilead. [Now, this is only for example purposes to demonstrate. Not intended as a personal attack.]
So you're ridiculing me instead of mocking me? I'm sorry Beskar, either way I'm entitled to be offended if I so choose. Ridicule is not better than mocking, it just sounds cleverer because the word has a Latin root.