Anyone notice that some conclusions of the basic premise were drawn from the behavior of rats? It's kind of interesting how we all just kind of nod and smile when a scientist or psychologist draws conclusions about us from rodents. The reason that the rat is happy in rat happy land is because that is all the reason the rat is here; to be a rat. If a rat is getting his senses stimulated, physically and socially, he is going to be happy because there is nothing more to his life. There is more to our lives than having our senses stimulated by physical pleasures and social interactions.

We, unlike rats or any other animals, were created to have a relationship with our Creator. Existence in the material world will never fully satisfy anyone, because our hearts are longing for eternal, and not temporal satisfaction, which only God can give us. Our happiness on Earth is largely dependent on our conditions, and if our conditions are bad, happiness and peace are fleeting. Real life with God brings a lasting satisfaction and peace which transcends every circumstance of life, and a living hope which buoys the spirit and brings unending joy.

I agree with the idea of the cage, and that cage is the prison of sin. it has nothing to do with social connections, or lack thereof. Some of the most famous people on Earth, who have the whole world as their oyster, are addicted to drugs, depressed, disillusioned, and grasping for meaning in their lives. Sin is a spiritual prison which brings only death and destruction. In this life you reap what you sow, and the wages of sin is death. A seed thrown into dry ground, cracking under the noon-day sun, is not going to bear any fruit. So it is when people go into the desert of sin looking for paradise; the illusion will occasionally be dispelled by a mouthful of sand, but like a rat they keep going back to the trap.

There is a way out, because although we cannot pay for our own sins and escape the trap, the Lord Jesus Christ took the punishment for our sins so that we could be set free. On the cross, He paid the price for our sins, yours and mine; when we begin to trust Him as our Lord and Savior, He will give us a new life, and a new heart with new desires to turn away from sin and live according to His will. We are set free from the bondage, not only of addiction, but sin and death. He heals our deepest wounds and comforts us, he heals deep seated habits, depression and mental illness.

When you open the cage of sin and let the Lord in, this scripture begins to operate: 2Cor3:17 Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty

I don't think it's supposed to be taken in a general way and applied to "gay" people, but rather telling the story that isn't very often heard about those people who don't identify as either gay or straight, or who fall into the bisexual, asexual or questioning (gay/bi/trans curious) categories of the LGBT[QIA].

The truth is, we want to believe SO BADLY as a society that we are either gay or straight. And then we want to label ourselves to find community and identity SO BADLY, that some people get caught in the middle of two (or more!) different worlds, and that neither normative communities quite describe their sexuality. Hence the final comparison with the romantic comedy Sliding Doors. Also, that's why these crazy parties exist in the first place. (You're NOT invited.)

Let's see, there's:

L is for Lesbian, which is women's special gay letter. Technically you could just call LGBT, GBT, as some women identify as gay but not lesbian, or vice versa, or both. But women are special because of feminism, so they get L and G but men only get G.

Don't get on my ass because I speak the truth. I attend plenty enough GBT events to know the fluctuating social stigmas within the group, as well as the bitter rivalries between different letters of the acronym (or those who want to lengthen or shorten the representative letters). It's confusing to people who have this misconception that all stories of gay or lesbian people apply to all gay or lesbian people. It's so diverse, what's even the point of labels any more?

Anyway, moving on.

G is for Gay, which is women or men, but in common usage was (or is, depending on your perspective) for men. Yet as time goes on and the information age fills in our social gaps, women have begun to identify as gay. In fact, I have a genderfluid friend who was born female, but often identifies as a gay male, and has even been accepted into the ranks of the the Gay Men's Chorus. Take that label obsessed society!!

B is for Bisexual, which is a broad category that I'd say more aptly covers this situation, but even more so I think the Q (Questioning) with a little or a lot of A (Asexual) of the greater acronym LGBTQ or LGBTQIA is an even better term for these two star crossed lovers.

T is for Transgender, which is another broad category but with very specific splinter factions of crossdressers, transexuals, transvestites, genderfluid, etc. etc. Some of these terms, depending on the context are either outdated, have new or older and more specific defining characteristics, or even more often, people define themselves as the umbrella term itself, transgender, because the feelings of one or the other specifics oscillates and changes as transgender people (male and female) age. I know trans people of all ages and wow, the perspectives are vast, and are rarely consistent throughout the years. (You just DON'T know how you'll identify at the age of 65+.)

Q is for Questioning, which is for people who just don't know what they are. This one is really an open ended letter and often isn't included because it represents an ignorance of the self. Maybe you figure out your sexuality or gender specifics right away or maybe it takes you years of experimentation to find your niche. Or maybe you transcend the boundaries forever, always changing and never staying the same throughout the years. The main thing here is that you don't know. Maybe you have a gay romance and then you're like, "Damn, I'm definitely straight" and now you're not even part of LGBT. Q is like the gateway letter. lol

I is for Intersex, which is for people who have genitalia or other gender defining anatomy which is different, not entirely present, is equally both, or more of one than the other. Look it up, because I'm the least familiar with this one, though I do have friends who are intersex. I just haven't asked them enough specifics out of respect. Also, recent research into genetics has shown that you could have a portion of your body that isn't gender defining, but which is made up of the opposite sex's genetic code. I've heard of people who have had their toe or their heart identified as male, but the rest of their body is female. Some people will never even know they're intersex, and depending on what part of their body is intersex, may not experience any feelings other than their body's dominant sex. (I don't have a scientific link, but it was part of a topic that I attended at PRIDE.

A is for Asexual, which is for people who don't have sexual feelings, or who don't act on sexual feelings for any number of reasons intellectual, physical, or both. I don't know how broad this category is but I myself go through periods (sometimes years) of asexuality. A defining characteristic for some people who have misidentified as gay or bi. For example, my parents thought I was gay and I had friends who would openly call me gay, despite me not showing ANY sexual emotions towards either sex. Though I did have both guys and girls who would hit on me or have sex (oral or otherwise) with me on the down low, despite my half interest in both! People are curious and when you can't figure out someone's sexual identity, some people will lay it on so thick, it could be seen as sexual harassment. I knew several girls that just wanted to have sex with me so bad to figure out if I was gay or straight. I just didn't care about either sexes at the time, though I was pleasantly stimulated to varied effects.

I think this is the story that isn't told. If you're asexual or going through an asexual period, that doesn't make you gay!

There could be more movies or shorts out there telling this story, but this is the first honest look into the Q and A of LGBT that I've ever seen. Shit, and I thought when I published my book I'd be the first. Damn. heh

Subtlety transcends in this work of true art.

And I absolutely agree with his point, even though I might not quite express it in the same style and word choice.

This simple, but beautiful message transcends race, creed and colour, it should be shown - regularly - to every child on the planet. This form of brainwashing - unlike the religious sort - is a doctrine we should embrace.

Don't forget the steaming pile of shit otherwise known as 'Transcendence'

Even Avengers 2 is essentially a film about A.I.

Yes, that was an awful film. After reading your post it occurred to me that Transcendence without Johnny Depp (or any other love interest / human A.I. component) might actually have worked...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Looks good. Though after Transcendence I've lost faith in Hollywood getting complicated modern science and ethics right.

If one follows the rules, technique, weighing the dose, have had some experience so they know that they do not know, setting intentions, etc. One should receive a truly, unexplainable, vividly clear transcendent experience beyond one's own imagination.

Another good tip: Extract it yourself so that you know exactly what you have when you do it.

Human behavior is primitive, but the bible outlines exactly how a man should live to be at peace with God, the world and himself. There is nothing primitive about that, and in fact, if everyone followed what the bible said there would be peace on Earth today. The knowledge transmitted by Jesus Christ is not primitive compared to modern understanding, it is transcendent of modern understanding. Western civilization owes quite a bit to the bible:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

The bible is concerned with Earth because this is the planet God created for us to live. As far as the rest of the Universe goes, we're on a need to know basis.

How am I supposed to continue to interact intelligently when you keep twisting my words to imply things I have repeatedly stated I was not saying?

I deliberately chose my words to make it clear that I was not saying the driver MUST have done anything but only that he MIGHT. Simple reading comprehension; trying to twist my words for emotive effect is not going to work on me. (apart from getting a rise which it totally did)

You only seem willing to entertain a single perspective assessment of the situation and appear completely closed off to any other interpretation/speculation I have attempted to present.

The fact you have repeatedly ignored the core argument I have been making (that there is no such thing as one perspective and morality is a relativistic concept) suggests that either A you don't understand what I'm trying to say (in which case I'm happy to explain further) or B. don't want to understand (in which case I can't do shit for you sorry)

Let me put it another way. Do you think we understand Hitler and the Nazi's better by A. calling them racist fags and blindly denouncing their actions as "evil". or B. attempting to understand the mindset and motivations for what they did with a minimum of emotional compromise?

When you take the care to examine life's little unpleasantries like Nazi's or bike gangs or whatever from a less emotive position, you realise that they were/are not just some abhorrent alien force in society. Any one of us has the same capacity to behave like this, they aren't fundamentally different creatures and the belief that they are is exactly what allows people to justify doing this kind of thing in the 1st place. (If you asked one of the bike gangers to describe you and I you'd likely find they used the same kind of derogatory and dehumanising terms and categories, we're just slipping into the reciprocal tribal mindset)

Do I think bike gangs (and for that matter large groups of people in general) generally represent humanity at its worst? Yes totally, they are to my sensibilities 1st class arseholes. That's why I've agreed with you repeatedly on this (from post 1 onwards in fact!) I just like to come at things from more than one perspective because ultimately perspective is all that really exists to us, in this case I shared some measure of perspective with the bikers as I can see how thing thing could have escalated from that POV and how they might well have justified their actions to themselves.

Ethics/morals are little more than deep aesthetic preferences, they have no observable basis of authority in the natural world, only our own minds. While it's an illusion were arguably better off with, it does rather get in the way of objectivity.

All I really take exception to is having my words and meaning distorted and my core argument ignored. It's called a straw-man (reciting a deliberately distorted and weak version of your opponents argument to then tear it down) that shit wouldn't even fly in a high-school debating club and it certainly wont work with me here. Its fine that you disagree but at least get what your disagreeing with right please.

It's not about "good and "bad" "right" and "wrong" but rather "why" and "how". In short it's more complicated than "bike curious fags" and reducing matters only to that does nothing to help the situation other than to illustrate ones deep aesthetic distaste (which in itself is totally valid and I've not contradicted at any stage). I have somewhat more split "deeply held aesthetic preferences" here which is what I originality began talking about, perhaps that's why I'm finding it easier to at least relate to the bikers side of things even if I don't agree or condone.

"....and also disagree that anything excuses...."

^ This phrase beautifully demonstrates the folly of rigid non-perspective based morality. By embracing any arbitrary absolute truth or principle such as this one renders objectivity and transcendence impossible. Justification is a personal thing, what I'm interested in is provocation and explanation, we can argue what's justified until the cows come home because its not an objective concept it's a subjective preference.

This, when all semantics are stripped away is the core of why we are disagreeing I think. You think Ethics/morals are actual things that matter in their own right, I think they are no more than strong preferences who's usefulness is directly proportional to ones ability to understand and sympathise with those of others. Everything else has really been a play around that (by both of us) in less direct terms I fear....

Well said,

It could be that the very existence of the future of evolution is already "installed" genetically in human brains. Taking this substance might be exposing these neural networks that seem like our technological transcendence into the Universe.

The Status Quo would not want anyone to know and would deny it exists, and as I have found by talking about it - people will straight up make fun of you. Until they do it, and then they apologize profusely!

Word.

Though I'd go a step further; it's not unchecked capitalism it's unchecked elitism manifesting via capitalism. Money itself isn't really worth anything, it's just a token one can exchange strategically for power over others.

The real problem is the unchecked "will to power" which drives Hegel's Master-slave dialectic (yes I'm retroactively mating Nietzsche to Hegel deal with it ).

Simply put, we are "thrown" into our experience of the world with no real context and so we are compelled to make our own. This means all human interactions on some level are an exercise in self validation.
Most conversations could be reduced to:
"Please validate my existence"
"Yes, you exist. Please validate my existence"
"Existence validated, please re validate my existence"
etc.

Unfortunately this isn't how it usually goes because we have an innate need to maximise our "will" but a disproportionate capacity to do so. What really happens is this:

"Please validate my existence as superior to yours"
"Yes, your "will" is superior. Please validate my existence"
"Yes, you are my inferior"

or

"Please validate my existence as superior to yours"
"No you are inferior and must validate my existence as superior to yours!"

^ This one eventually results in one backing down and submitting to being the others "slave" (in terms of "will") after a fight (physical or metal) until one emerges as "master". Though naturally a top down hierarchy will develop where many are masters of some and slaves to others (with a big group of clueless and bewildered slaves at the bottom of the whole thing)

The end result is human relationships and societies naturally fall into a master and slave relationship. One person or group demonstrates superior "will to power" and subjugates the majority. However this is where the dialectic comes in to play as this relationship is not a static one (much like the human condition itself).

The Masters already have what they wanted/needed, validation from their "slaves", but the slaves do not. Thus it is the slaves that evolve and develop newer, superior and more powerful forms of "will" until inevitably a new "master" or group of "masters" is produced. At this point a new dialectic cycle begins with new "masters" and new "slaves" under a new paradigm.

The current masters exert their power and maintain the existing paradigm by covet means. So it is precisely this which we must supersede as their "slaves" in order to create a new more evolved human social paradigm.
The idea that anyone is entitled to disproportionate wealth or hereditary privilege must be destroyed utterly or we will never transcend the paradigm that makes them "Masters".

(Though that is not to say merit should not be rewarded, I don't have a problem with the hardest working and most valuable members of society enjoying just rewards. Just not at the expense of the majority getting a shitty deal.)

I agree; happiness is transient exactly because it based only upon favorable circumstances. Sooner or later circumstances will change and we will no longer be happy. To be content in any situation means that you must have something which is transcendent of your circumstances. What do you see that as being? Let's say for instance that you have a very adverse circumstance, like you have gone from being relatively healthy to having a crippling disability. How would you become content in that situation?

Of course there is lesbian porn for lesbians.

I'm kinda depressed that these women don't seem to be taking advantage of it. Porn is an absolute good in the world; it should be enjoyed by everyone, young and old, male and female and other, gay and straight and all the rest of it.

Listen, whatever your orientation, if you're missing out on good porn please keep looking. I know it can be hard to find and there's a lot of rubbish to wade through but it's out there and the reward for finding it will be tremendous.

Despite my, uh, lack of experience in this particular area I feel compelled to make a couple of recommendations. Try Pink & White Productions' Crash Pad Series; and the work of transcendent beauty Jiz Lee (who actually identifies without gender and works with both men and women, but you won't be disappointed).

Oh, and incidentally being called a bitch is not unsexy to everyone and lesbians, even 'gold star' lesbians (amazing phrase), can enjoy penetration.