Quite honestly, my theory is that people don't have a problem with homosexuality per se, it's that perception that homosexuality = weakness. It's that gender role reversal that has people scared IMO where boys act like girls and girls act like men. In all honesty. That's one thing I still don't really get about homosexuality. What exactly about being homosexual makes a man TALK like a girl? In all honesty, it's that stereotypical flamboyant, effeminate "fabulous" archetype that freaks people out. Chances are, you know someone who is homosexual but they simply act straight so you don't even know it. It's that perception that all homosexuals secretly dress up in BDSM attire and are fabulous interior decorators.

It's the same damned thing with black people. which stereotype causes the most fear for the average american? The assimilated black person who talks like a white person, or the guy dressed as a gangster with heavy ebonics-laden speech? IMO being black per se, or being homosexual per se has almost nothing to do with it. If a straight man started acting flamboyant and effeminate, people would be freaked out about that too. Kids with no strong male role models are perceived to be momma's boys and are picked on...it's the same thing.

Fight those stereotypes and I bet you anything people would accept homosexuality a lot more.

>> ^robdot:

i just dont understand why so many people care what gay people are doing? who gives a fuck? dont we all have other things to worry about? why do these people spend so much time concerned about who someone else loves?

They seem to have a good impulse to have a positive influence on the world, but don't their actions have zero effect on the world events they dislike? Most of the costs on society they generated were likely covered by the company's insurance policy or the government.

Whether we agree with them or not, it seems all they did was encourage moderate society's dislike for the archetype of impractical hippies who eschew democracy in favor of violence.

Blankfist, thanks for the definitions, I guess I have never come to terms with all the lingo; atheist, theist, religious, gnostic, agnostic etc.
I don't work well with labels. Maybe that's why I don't use them to define myself and they tend to pigeon hole me into one camp or the other.

I have an inner dislike for hierarchies of any kind, religious, political or social. To me they are all artificial archetypes and superficial. I have never been able to see past the equality of one person over another. Because of this, I can't bring myself to believe in the word "worship" which instantly relinquishes your independence and puts you under the dominance of another.

For me, I enjoy all the points of view. The possibility of creation but not by omnipotence. The possibility that we are a lost, abandoned or marooned colony. The possibility that we are spontaneous life.

SDGundamX, I still think creativity plays a role in spirituality. At the same time, I agree with you. All our life experiences are compared and refined to create our own personal dichotomy. I think we take the facts and creatively weave them together with abstract ideas and concepts in order to define them for ourselves.

In a church of 600 people, not everyone can believe that exact same thing. Some people will close off to some things, some with redefine certain meanings. Some will have certain beliefs that they keep to themselves. some parts will be believed whole-heartedly while some things will be dismissed outright.

Point being; Spirituality can be both a scientific dissection and cataloging of events in ones personal life and it can be a creative process of combining personal and world views in order to define and encompass one's own "theory of everything" however limiting or defining it may be.

"You just don't get it."
Well, then it's probably not important. If an argument is not worth making, it's not worth hearing.

In the above video he says a lot of stuff that has no bearing on reality, if he is indeed right, I want more evidence than just him or you saying "It's true".

@enoch Concerning dreams; There's a big difference between perception of reality and actual reality. Just because you can imagine (dream) in a non-linear way, doesn't mean your brain processes it in a non-linear way. We can watch movies with skipping times as well (like pulp fiction, for instance) but that doesn't change that the movie plays forward one picture at a time.

I'm sure Jung was a brilliant guy, Freud too, but it seems clear that they make the same God of the Gaps in their time as many other brilliant men did as well. There's a sift with Neil deGrasse Tyson somewhere, where he talks about god of the gaps and the many brilliant men who fall back on that, when they can't explain something.

He bases his argument on "You can have dreams or visions of the future, only ignorance denies this" well, I think that's false. Our brain can guess and sometimes hit somewhat close to what actually happens, but the brain retroactively molds our memory to fit better, by only remembering some parts and forgetting others. I've not seen evidence yet of anyone being able to predict the future beyond the obvious or better than guesswork. So, that is a faulty assumption. Like he says in the latter part, he does not believe for the sake of believing, but if there's sufficient reason to believe a thing, he will believe it. That's a good way to go, but there's not enough reason to believe the mind is separate from the body. There are, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that we're confined in our bodies.

>> ^rougy:

>> ^berticus:
jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.

If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.
It's...wasted breath.
He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."
But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.
He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.
Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.

>> ^berticus:

jung had salient insights into human consciousness?
where?
next you'll be telling me freud was really great too.


If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.

It's...wasted breath.

He coined the term "synchronicity" which so many have tried to denigrate into "coincidence."

But it is much more than that, and only the aware will comprehend.

He recognized the archetypes that transcended cultures, around the world, through the centuries.

Anybody who calls bullshit on C.G. Jung hasn't done his homework.

That's an extremely impressive strawman you've got there. You've clearly put a lot of work into it.

Personally, I find myself angry and depressed upon each FF release because it's such a sad and pathetic commentary on the world we live in. Here we have a series built on bad storytelling, bad characters, bad plots, bad gameplay, and bad interface design and it's one of the most celebrated game franchises of all time. It would be like Atari Teenage Riot putting out albums for 20+ years and all of them going double-platinum.
>> ^davidraine:

I really don't understand all the Final Fantasy bashing. Final Fantasy = Epic-ish storyline & Archetypal characters & Combat engine & Pretty graphics. Everyone knows this by now, and yet every release everyone whines about how Squaresoft really screwed the pooch this time around, Final Fantasy 6/7/8/10 was way better, and if they don't pull their head out of their ass the company is finished. Never mind that they have enough money to print their next limited edition release on actual gold discs. Okay that's exaggerating, but you see my point.
The point is that you already know for the most part what you're getting into when you open the box, and it should not surprise you. I enjoyed the crap out of Final Fantasy XIII because the graphics amazed me, the combat system was fun and engaging, and I actually enjoyed the story's pacing for the most part. It doesn't hurt that I think their characters have been getting better with each subsequent release. If you can't stand the characters, or don't like the combat, or aren't willing to watch for 20 hours while the thing gets going, then play a different game. No-one is forcing you to buy this one, and I'd be happy to recommend alternatives.

I really don't understand all the Final Fantasy bashing. Final Fantasy = Epic-ish storyline & Archetypal characters & Combat engine & Pretty graphics. Everyone knows this by now, and yet every release everyone whines about how Squaresoft really screwed the pooch this time around, Final Fantasy 6/7/8/10 was way better, and if they don't pull their head out of their ass the company is finished. Never mind that they have enough money to print their next limited edition release on actual gold discs. Okay that's exaggerating, but you see my point.

The point is that you already know for the most part what you're getting into when you open the box, and it should not surprise you. I enjoyed the crap out of Final Fantasy XIII because the graphics amazed me, the combat system was fun and engaging, and I actually enjoyed the story's pacing for the most part. It doesn't hurt that I think their characters have been getting better with each subsequent release. If you can't stand the characters, or don't like the combat, or aren't willing to watch for 20 hours while the thing gets going, then play a different game. No-one is forcing you to buy this one, and I'd be happy to recommend alternatives.

(Disclaimer: The arguments I've seen here are just about the mildest form of FF bashing I've seen on the Internet. It's just that any level of this generic / nostalgic bashing annoys me because the series has been around so long that it should surprise literally no-one by this point.)

Meh, archetypes is nothing new. Personally, I found Avatar more similar to The Last Samurai than to Pocahontas. Only much better, of course.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
PostalBlowfish
Your name is well chosen. But, as always, it is nice to encounter a person so willing to grapple with issues, avoid non sequiters, eschew ad hominems, and to stick to facts and substance. You represent your side of the debate well, sir. By all means continue to serve as the Jungian archetype of your persuasion.


You pretend like you would be willing to have a debate, but I can tell by your discourse that you're not. Here's a hint - I left one word in the quote I edited. Here's another hint - if your posts contain borderline conspiracy rants, don't expect to be taken seriously. As you have pointed out I did not engage your drivel, so you really can't say what side of the debate I would represent. I can - reason. But I make it a point not to waste too much of my time on people who will abandon reason in the end if it turns out the alternative would be to admit they are wrong. You should thank me for not wasting yours.

PostalBlowfish

Your name is well chosen. But, as always, it is nice to encounter a person so willing to grapple with issues, avoid non sequiters, eschew ad hominems, and to stick to facts and substance. You represent your side of the debate well, sir. By all means continue to serve as the Jungian archetype of your persuasion.

Federal...provincial

I expect the opposition would be a lot less strident to Obamacare if there was specific language in any of hte bills that created a system of state programs with only loose federal oversight. Problem is, the bills in Congress aren't talking about that. People like me have a hard time believing the feds are just going to step back. All current bills point to the creation of a large federal system where money is sent to Washtington and then doled out from there ala Medicare & Medicaid.

CBO estimates

I only brought up the CBO as an example to show that even Obama's own agency does not expect this plan to 'save' money. You're using it like a Jungian archetype. "If the CBO says it will cost 2 trillion, that means it'll only cost 1.4 trillion." Uh - sure - that's how it all works... :eyeroll:

Use whatever 'estimate' you like. Use some estimate that says Obamacare will magically produce free money on trees and the whole ball of wax will only cost $6.50 and a pack of Mentos. The specific estimate in question you prefer is utterly irrelevant. The point is that any federal program created to manage health care will end up costing WAY more than estimated and will manifest as a massive money pit that sucks in billions and spits out below-average results ala Medicare/aid.

What we should be comparing is out of pocket cost for health care as a percentage of after tax income

No - I'd say we should be looking at total out of pocket costs including taxes. That means we don't just look at how much I'm spending on private care, but we also look at how much we have to pay for the whole deal. Every bill in congress to date is not projected to cost individual taxpayers 'less' when all costs are tallied. There will be taxes, monthly payments to a 'plan', office visit fees, co-pays, prescription drug costs, 'for service' fees for any 'non approved' treatments. And on and on and on.

People talking as if Obamacare will just be "Yay - I can go anywhere and get treated for anything and it's all FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" Uh - no - that's total bullcrap. You have only to look at Medicare and Medicaid today to see the future of Obamacare. Substandard coverage, high costs, and big fat government involvement in what you can & can't have. The writing is right there on the wall. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up. How anyone can delude themselves into thinking Obamacare will be the FIRST program in government history to buck the trend is beyond me.

Winstonfield lives in a world where if everyone owns a gun, everyone is safer.

Typical neolib issue avoidance. I live in a world where common sense & reality must be dealt with. Obamacare ignores both.

>> ^kir_mokum:
aside from wedding traditions, how is this misogynistic?
oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.
from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."
the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."
also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.
also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.
it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.


JEEZ... Calm the fucking fuck down, fucker. It's clear that you don't agree with berti's viewpoint, but there was absolutely no reason to get all flaming nasty with your commenting. And you accuse the poster of trying to pick a fight and being reactionary? Um...

omg. It's not a PR stunt people. Stop being such conspiracy theorists. 3DR hasn't done anything in years, so them closing would be the same as them remaining open--it makes no difference. I just want to stop hearing about DNF, and anything G.Broussard or S.Miller have to say.

That company is just not relevant anymore, and nobody cares about their once-great hero, Duke Nukem. He's now just as irrelevant as his creators. He has no soul. He has no unique, appealing notability or individuality that make him stand out from every other FPS character. He's just a masculine stereotype that nobody is interested in anymore.

There was a time when his archetype had its place in gaming, but these days, gamers demand more. There's nothing interesting about anything 3DR has shown about DNF to this point. Nothing groundbreaking or innovative at all. It feels like every other soulless FPS with no purpose other than gratuitous violence.

I, for one, am not sad to see it go, and have had no anticipation for its arrival since it was very first announced. I just wish the douchebag talking heads at 3DR would stfu and stay the fuck out of the media.

Let it go already.

aside from wedding traditions, how is this misogynistic?

oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.

from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."

the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."

also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.

also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.

it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.

Astrology has more in common with alchemy, mysticism, and archetypes than astronomy or empirical science.