Who repressed Americas locker rooms?

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by surferboy+Jul 2 2005, 08:19 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(surferboy &#064; Jul 2 2005, 08:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by mrhung642@Jul 2 2005, 09:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-surferboy

@Jul 2 2005, 07:34 PM


Christians have been killing in then ame of their lord for centuries.

[post=326157]Quoted post[/post]​

That doesnt make it right.

[post=326164]Quoted post[/post]​

Believe me, I never claimed it made it right. MAtter of fact, it totally disgusts me how like, Christians try to forget about the atrocities commited for the name of Christ. But, I have no qualms with most Christians, so like, don&#39;t jump on my case.

[post=326165]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Thanks Nixxy for having no qualms with most Christians. I was taught thd word Christian meant Christlike.

As a professing Christian, it breaks my heart when I read of some of the things that have been done and done in the name of Christianity. But Jesus himself said there were be false prophets and people who would prophecy and teach in his name who did not KNOW him.

So there are been many people who have killed and killed in the name of Jesus. That doesn&#39;t mean that Jesus would have approved. On the contrary he would have denounced it.

If you think you have a hard time dealing with these fake christians, try thinking out it feels to me as a Chrsitian to know these things.

Every religion has some fake people. And anytime a group gets going that really is spiritaul, loving and wonderful, you can expect the fakers to show up and screwed it up as much as they can. Been that way for centuries. Doubt it will change.

Again, Nixxy, thanks for accepting those of us who are genuine Christians. That means a lot to me.

 

[Dude!]

Good post Freddie.

If someone kills in the name of God, how is that going to make God feel? Not a happy God, I should think. But if someone tries to use Jesus&#39; teachings to live a good life, surely you can accept them whether or not you agree with them? Oh, and not belittle their faith. Don&#39;t seem to get people doing that to Muslims or Sikhs, everyone goes for the Christians

 

[Dr Rock]

actually, for the record, islam is just as stupid and annoying as christianity. sikhism isn&#39;t quite on the same level of retardation, but there&#39;s still no excuse for it.

 

[KinkGuy]

Religion aside Dr. Rock....I would be more than happy to towel you down in the locker room....anytime. :evilgrin:

 

[Spork]

Isn&#39;t it amazing that the One True Religion is almost always the one your parents practice?

 

[Wave]

Oy vey, you shoulda had a bagel&#33;

i hope you all will forgive me for adding to this conversation thread when I have not properly introduced myself as of yet, (I don&#39;t have much time to write on the web cuz i only have access at work) but I felt compelled to add to this interesting sociological/psychological-sexual; dialogue. :grr:


It really doesn&#39;t seem very likely at all that Christianity has repressed the locker-rooms of America, although from my experiences in locker-rooms of late, somethng has cuz almost every young guy i see there is undressing/dressing using the old wrap-a-towel-around-the-waist-and-slip-&#39;em-on/off-while-wearing-that-towel trick, which kinda defeats the purpose of a gender-specific locker-room.

And it really can&#39;t be some kind of "new modesty" happening across society either, cuz one listen to the radio waves and one night of tv watching pretty-much shows that we&#39;re not as modest or concerned with propriety or manners as we were even two decades ago.

I assert that it&#39;s NOT Christianity&#39;s fault cuz A) most folks aren&#39;t christians, at least according to stats about church attendance; B) the message of christianity is hardly being promulgated over mainstream media systems; and C) the specific message of nakedness being "bad"....i&#39;ve never heard that talked about ANY sermon i have ever heard.

What i DO think is affecting young men and teenagers as they get undressed/dressed in locker-rooms is a series of issues:

1. Less father/son time together so that guys feel good about themselves and their bodies in relation to other men.

2. Promulgation of easier-access internet pornography so that young guys can see lots of pictures of cocks--many of them far larger than what the majority of these young men are endowed with, which can cause them to feel inadequate. (i remember when i was a teen--the store clerk wouldn&#39;t even sell me a Playboy magazine without a parent present, and just think about what stuff teens can see now, by themselves, via their personal computers&#33

3. More openness/awareness about homosexuality. Face it--most kids today know what "gay" means and that there are other guys who like other guys and may want to have sex with them. This makes lots of guys who are not gay feel very uncomfortable in locker-rooms, although maybe in the long run it will be a good influence on society cuz guys will have a better understanding of how many women feel who are constantly being checked out and whistled at and treated like a piece of sexy meat?


I think much of it is feelings of inadequacy, however, about the size of their units compared to the stallions that they see online. I&#39;d also imagine that once they start to have sex and realize that they are capable and adequate and all that, they&#39;ll be undressing a bit more in front of other guys and not feeling so inadequate. "Ignorance is bliss." B)

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Jun 24 2005, 11:21 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Jun 24 2005, 11:21 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Pecker@Jun 25 2005, 02:02 AM
So if a person is not a liberal he has a biologically based brain disorder?

[post=323874]Quoted post[/post]​

well it&#39;s certainly easier to believe than the idea that someone would WILLINGLY identify themselves as conservative...

[post=323878]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]


maybe they just understand economics.

 

[Dr Rock]

... or perhaps they just really need to get themselves lives.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by smallman@Jul 23 2005, 08:02 PM
maybe they just understand economics.

[post=331282]Quoted post[/post]​

Except that then they don&#39;t. Supply-side economics is basically the same as perpetual motion.

 

[madame_zora]

Yeah, I love how people can still claim fiscal conservativism with this administration and keep a straight face.

 

[Lex]

Cha--CHING~&#33;&#33;

Originally posted by jonb
Except that then they don&#39;t. Supply-side economics is basically the same as perpetual motion.

You mean like how Bush keeps putting oil INTO the RESERVES, even as gas prices rise?
Maybe he DOES understand supply side econimics and its just that his goals are NOT in alignment with the way most people have to live? I remember out last President OPENING up the reserves when gas prices were rising out of conteol in order to keep prices down. But then, most Democrats don&#39;t have oil tycoons funding them.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 24 2005, 05:02 AM
Yeah, I love how people can still claim fiscal conservativism with this administration and keep a straight face.

[post=331315]Quoted post[/post]​

When did I claim that I supported this administration? I&#39;m not even a Republican, I&#39;m a Libertarian. All I&#39;m saying is that conservatives, as the concept is broadly understood, generally understand economics to a greater extent than liberals. There are exceptions to this rule. Pat Buchanan type "social conservatives" often have little understanding of economics, and Clinton&#39;s (who was pretty economically conservative) policies are certainly perferable to Bush&#39;s. But, in general, I stick by my statement that liberals (and by this I dont mean the political elites, I mean the unwashed masses) don&#39;t understand economics.

 

[smallman]

You mean like how Bush keeps putting oil INTO the RESERVES, even as gas prices rise?
Maybe he DOES understand supply side econimics and its just that his goals are NOT in alignment with the way most people have to live? I remember out last President OPENING up the reserves when gas prices were rising out of conteol in order to keep prices down. But then, most Democrats don&#39;t have oil tycoons funding them.

We really should do the European style gasoline tax. If everyone had to pay 10&#036; per gallon, there&#39;d be a lot less damage to the environment.

 

[madame_zora]

Smallman, I wasn&#39;t directing that comment specifically at you, just the "conservatives" in general. I had no idea what your political affiliations were until you posted it. Most people don&#39;t understand that Clinton was fiscally conservative for the most part, most can only equate Democrat=liberal, Republican=conservative. That was what I was objecting to. It seems to me these days that niether of those equations are true anymore.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 24 2005, 04:19 PM
Smallman, I wasn&#39;t directing that comment specifically at you, just the "conservatives" in general. I had no idea what your political affiliations were until you posted it. Most people don&#39;t understand that Clinton was fiscally conservative for the most part, most can only equate Democrat=liberal, Republican=conservative. That was what I was objecting to. It seems to me these days that niether of those equations are true anymore.

[post=331481]Quoted post[/post]​

true true

 

[jonb]

Actually, supply-side economics has pretty much been discredited. There are like 12 supply-siders in the American Economic Association. (Out of 18,000 members.)

Suffice it to say, like all crank theories, it survives in think tanks.

Part of the problem is that the American media rely on sound bites. It&#39;s easy to say X, but the rejoinder ~X is not so easy to say.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 24 2005, 05:28 PM
Actually, supply-side economics has pretty much been discredited. There are like 12 supply-siders in the American Economic Association. (Out of 18,000 members.)

Suffice it to say, like all crank theories, it survives in think tanks.

Part of the problem is that the American media rely on sound bites. It&#39;s easy to say X, but the rejoinder ~X is not so easy to say.

[post=331540]Quoted post[/post]​

Im not a supply-sider. I believe the government should cut all subsidies and patenting abilities used by large corporations to monopolize certain sectors of the economy. I think the government should stay out of the way whenever possible.


But I must take issue with the notion that supply side economics has been discredited. The Kennedy tax cut paid for itself, but Johnson&#39;s great society and the Vietnam war created huge dfeicits. Likewise Reagon and his military spending and W. and his defense and domestic spending. Personally, if we could start our entire civilization from scratch and equal footing, Id favor the flat tax in a heartbeat.

 

[jonb]

But then you run into other problems.

What most neocons won&#39;t tell you is, progressive taxation was actually invented by Adam Smith. You know how they talk about "Put down Das Kapital and pick up The Wealth of nations."

Ideology is interesting. Take Greenspan&#39;s idea for a national sales tax. You get to "choose" to pay your taxes, so it seems more moral at first. But it still only means shifting more burden to the working classes. &#302;ktomi could learn something from the typical American politician.

 

[Pecker]

Damn, guys.

All I wanted to do was to take a fuckin&#39; shower.

 

[smallman]

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 26 2005, 08:20 PM
But then you run into other problems.

What most neocons won&#39;t tell you is, progressive taxation was actually invented by Adam Smith.

[post=331921]Quoted post[/post]​

First of all I never said that I didn&#39;t support progressive taxation, I just think it creates problems. Now, let me ask you this; if I didn&#39;t believe in progressive taxation would the fact that Adam Smith came up with it convert me? He&#39;s not a fucking religious figure, just a brilliant thinker.