Finally stop this!

[DARTH VADER]

Go and see what I have written.

You can participate in the conversation

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...95#post1095095

I am sorry if some of you do not agree but this is me. I take position for anything.
Neutrality is for the weak.

[Vimes]

Unless you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this here could you answer why you felt the need to write with such passion on what was a topic that didn't really have any value on the soldering capabilities of a great person like Alexander, in my opinion...? I am not suggesting that I disagree or agree with you but merely curious as to what compelled you to write as you did

[repman]

The way someone is practising sex is of no importance except for criminal acts...
I don't understand your conspiracy theory that the gays are taking over our media, thinking,....
There is nothing as one way of real manhood, some like it soft some like it hard...
Maybe your are too much involved in this darth vader force thinking....using words as weak, strong.....relax and go to the greek beach enjoying the sun and forgetting the dark

repman

[DARTH VADER]

@Vimes:
I still continue to write on this thread. What forced me to do it was ...my yesterday's mood and the additional crime non-proofable and idiotic writing of unnamed people in the internet. If we all let it go...it will win. I believe to what I write and I believe that stupidity and half-education are the most dangerous enemies of Mankind.

@repman:
Do not worry friend. I like to give notes of humour to my speaking since I write here as Darth Vader...but that does not mean I do not know what I write ,why I write and to whom it goes to.
The greek sun will charge my batteries all August but will not change my beliefs.

[caratacus]

I agree Darth, you did well to speak out although who you may offend on a website devoted to total war between men I can't imagine. Although I have suspected there were rather two many debates on whether Alexander was or was not of this inclination rather than his battles.

There does seem to be a gradual feminisation of modern western society. I attribute this though more to unknown environmental factors rather than cultural change, although the two will probably go hand in hand (whoops a pun!)

Scientists have known for years that feminisation has been taking place in fish populations caused by chemicals which mimic Oestrogen in the water, could the same be happening in humans? Sperm counts are falling over most of Europe( with the exception of Finland for some reason) If this is true, the future of the human species is not a good one.

Although being Greek you will be undoubtably touchy about the subject, I always was led to believe that the Romans looked down on the Greeks for being afeminate, as despite the trappings of what we call today culture, they were really very tough barbarians at heart.

[The Lacedaemonian]

whats crazy is that they discussed that on almost all the boards. SCC, RTR. (not the ORG)

[Kaweh]

Hey, (The) Spartan! (btw,I couldn't care less if Alexander was gay or not, all that I'm interested in are his battles and his Generalship, etc,)

K.K

[DARTH VADER]

@caratacus:
Maybe this is why Finland has the most suicide attempts in the world (true..for all the countries in the region). The pressure is high for a man it seems.
Ok I am joking.
I do not know if the last you mention (Romans for Greeks) is true ...maybe each time we go to a soccer arena and shout for the feminism of the rival team we exploit the truth for our adversary?.... or our will to humiliate our opponent? Most logical is the second.
The truth is that if you have ever faced one of the mens of the period ...you would be ashamed of what man is today...mostly.

@The Lacedaemonian
It sells it seems.....

[Darth Wong]

All of your arguments about the dangers of "spreading" homosexuality (as preposterous as that idea is) and promoting the "agenda" of homosexuality presuppose that homosexuality itself is necessarily harmful to society. You have said absolutely nothing to actually demonstrate that this is the case.

All of the arguments about the encroaching acceptability of homosexuality, media promotion of tolerance toward homosexuality, etc. are absolutely worthless if you cannot justify your presumption that homosexuality itself is a bad thing. Because if it's not necessarily a bad thing, then there's nothing wrong with teaching people to be tolerant toward it.

[The Lacedaemonian]

Hey, (The) Spartan! (btw,I couldn't care less if Alexander was gay or not, all that I'm interested in are his battles and his Generalship, etc,)

K.K

i agree. btw Hello K.K.! just joinded TWC yesterday. :original:

[Darth Wong]

Obviously, people who aren't seriously homophobic will be completely unconcerned with the question of whether Alexander was gay or bisexual. It has nothing to do with the reason he is called Alexander the Great. But for hardline homophobes, it's a huge problem because their dogma prevents them from respecting any homosexual.

[IamthePope]

Obviously, people who aren't seriously homophobic will be completely unconcerned with the question of whether Alexander was gay or bisexual. It has nothing to do with the reason he is called Alexander the Great. But for hardline homophobes, it's a huge problem because their dogma prevents them from respecting any homosexual.

Alexander really cannot be considered a homosexual in the modern sense as the term and very idea of homosexuality did not yet exist. Alexander held greek values, and lived virtuously and honorably by the standards of his time (hence title Megas Alexandros). It would be foolishly anachronistic to judge a historical character so far removed from our society by the standards that our society deems apropriate.

[DARTH VADER]

We meet again ...old friend (yoda) Darth Wong

I will be brief of expressing the truth of the dangerous condition of Homosexuality.
Suppose that it is natural and so can become fully accepted and a way of life.
Men can then become couples, women the same (I like that to see ..I do not lie)
Let us all wait some years to see the outcome of our hepothetical assumption.

Now what we have here:

"Family Problem"
-Families become rare. Human society is based on homogenous groups with children conceived from a market of women ready to produce children with a price.
These children have nothing to do with the geneaology tree of their family ancestors and thus no blood bonding relationship resulting to a tendency to leave these "groups" without haste searching for a family affection long ago destroyed.
-The entities of these groups have misunderstood that their quest for pleasure-idony is to have a lot of sex-partners without a real affection since family is not of real importance and so this may result to new viruses like AIDS which spreads more easily to those who change erotic partners more often.
-The luck of family or blood relationship creates law problems as to where the fortune legacy of a dying person will be transferred so resulting to numerous conflicts and murders that have to do with it.
-The population gets smaller and teratogenesis is occuring more often due to human hand interfere of the breed of the homogenous couples.
The new people will have more diseases and be less adaptive just bcs they do not physically evolute but contol the offspring (Many blue-blooded royal families had a lot of very sick and retarded relatives bcs of the habbit of internal marriaging)

"Man problem"
-Since Man has no longer the use of Woman and Woman not his, they gain even more rivalship between them. I wonder what will have gained Woman Feminism in this kind of situation. Do we return to the years that woman was practically a slave? Do we want to become slaves?
Only one of two remains in the progress of evolution if there is a competition between these entities and this goes for all general things.
-As evolution progresses and Man becomes softer and softer..he will not be able to produce his ormones.(Nature has a code of its own to destroy what it is not used, (example the athletes who use testosterone have for a time period a large amount of androgones to their blood but later their organism stops to produce since it is gained as a habbit not to need the natural but the medicine)
Population stops to grow, we get even more older and die and human civilization is giving its place to rabbits who have a large breed habit (OK I am joking)

"My problem"
-I believe to certain rules of life that have been proven valuable and working all these years for Mankind.
Love and devotion for our Woman comrade (We must envy the pigeons who after the loss of their comrade they die almost instantly bcs they do not bear its loss and cannot have another one)
-Will to have family, kids, create life and future for the next generation than humiliating yourself to numerous relationships (even to your own sex?) just to achieve an animal erection. You can have multiple comrades if from bad luck you cannot achieve a good relationship but...not to have it as a target!
-I would die for a cause, a woman (that deserves it), family, children if anyone could bare to threaten them. Can you ask if this is true for the majority? We have too much peace and little things to think each day just to realize that some simple things that we have in our home and if we do not have them we can create them, can give us the pleasure/idony (of Aristoteles) we seek for.

[wipeout140]

btw,I couldn't care less if Alexander was gay or not, all that I'm interested in are his battles etc,

K.K

Thats my views there no need retype it

[Darth Wong]

We meet again ...old friend (yoda) Darth Wong

At an end, your rule is.

I will be brief of expressing the truth of the dangerous condition of Homosexuality.
Suppose that it is natural and so can become fully accepted and a way of life.
Men can then become couples, women the same (I like that to see ..I do not lie)
Let us all wait some years to see the outcome of our hepothetical assumption.

You don't appear to be waiting before pronouncing judgment.

Now what we have here:

"Family Problem"
-Families become rare. Human society is based on homogenous groups with children conceived from a market of women ready to produce children with a price.
These children have nothing to do with the geneaology tree of their family ancestors and thus no blood bonding relationship resulting to a tendency to leave these "groups" without haste searching for a family affection long ago destroyed.

Totally unjustified assumption. The vast majority of the population is still straight, and there is no evidence whatsoever that straight people can be "converted" to homosexuality just by learning that homosexuals are accepted now. Moreover, the biological urge to procreate is part of the genetic makeup of that vast majority.

-The entities of these groups have misunderstood that their quest for pleasure-idony is to have a lot of sex-partners without a real affection since family is not of real importance and so this may result to new viruses like AIDS which spreads more easily to those who change erotic partners more often.

Tell me, why do I have a wife and children while simultaneously supporting gay rights and normalization of gay relationships? According to your logic, someone like me should not be interested in having a family. Clearly, your logic is flawed.

-The luck of family or blood relationship creates law problems as to where the fortune legacy of a dying person will be transferred so resulting to numerous conflicts and murders that have to do with it.

So homosexuals will somehow destroy the concept of a legal Will?

-The population gets smaller and teratogenesis is occuring more often due to human hand interfere of the breed of the homogenous couples.
The new people will have more diseases and be less adaptive just bcs they do not physically evolute but contol the offspring (Many blue-blooded royal families had a lot of very sick and retarded relatives bcs of the habbit of internal marriaging)

Already answered above. Tolerance of homosexuality will not make straight people gay.

"Man problem"
-Since Man has no longer the use of Woman and Woman not his, they gain even more rivalship between them. I wonder what will have gained Woman Feminism in this kind of situation. Do we return to the years that woman was practically a slave? Do we want to become slaves?
Only one of two remains in the progress of evolution if there is a competition between these entities and this goes for all general things.

Already answered above. Tolerance of homosexuality will not make straight people gay.

-As evolution progresses and Man becomes softer and softer..he will not be able to produce his ormones.(Nature has a code of its own to destroy what it is not used, (example the athletes who use testosterone have for a time period a large amount of androgones to their blood but later their organism stops to produce since it is gained as a habbit not to need the natural but the medicine)

Already answered above. Tolerance of homosexuality will not make straight people gay.

Population stops to grow, we get even more older and die and human civilization is giving its place to rabbits who have a large breed habit (OK I am joking)

Already answered above. Tolerance of homosexuality will not make straight people gay.

"My problem"
-I believe to certain rules of life that have been proven valuable and working all these years for Mankind.
Love and devotion for our Woman comrade (We must envy the pigeons who after the loss of their comrade they die almost instantly bcs they do not bear its loss and cannot have another one)
-Will to have family, kids, create life and future for the next generation than humiliating yourself to numerous relationships (even to your own sex?) just to achieve an animal erection. You can have multiple comrades if from bad luck you cannot achieve a good relationship but...not to have it as a target!

By this logic, celibate people are destroying society. We should not allow people to think that it's OK to be a monk.

-I would die for a cause, a woman (that deserves it), family, children if anyone could bare to threaten them. Can you ask if this is true for the majority?

Most people would risk or sacrifice their lives to protect their children. We see this all the time.

We have too much peace and little things to think each day just to realize that some simple things that we have in our home and if we do not have them we can create them, can give us the pleasure/idony (of Aristoteles) we seek for.

And this doesn't apply to homosexuals?

[Obi Wan Asterix]

So Darth...... I take it not 69 formation for Alexander then

[DARTH VADER]

@Darth Wong

At an end, your rule is.

Only in the end... do you understand

Totally unjustified assumption. The vast majority of the population is still straight, and there is no evidence whatsoever that straight people can be "converted" to homosexuality just by learning that homosexuals are accepted now. Moreover, the biological urge to procreate is part of the genetic makeup of that vast majority.

You refer to the word "evidence" many times just to avoid a controversy. It is easy to deny an assumption or statement by the defense of this simple word. But it is an evidence itself of lack of arguments.

Tell me, why do I have a wife and children while simultaneously supporting gay rights and normalization of gay relationships? According to your logic, someone like me should not be interested in having a family. Clearly, your logic is flawed.

Let me answer to you with a math paradox.

Suppose A leads to D. then
B does not lead to D
C likes D but also likes B
B Likes C and A as well
Can we say that C is not B?..not really
Can we say that B is not C...no
Then how can we say that C cannot lead to D ?We cant!

I interpret "like" <
"is" =
"Lead" =>

So

A=>D (We know that) but

A<D
C<D, C<B<C, B<A

so B<D (B likes D...not true)

So with the beginning assumption we have a false result...so it is irrelevant as a parameter(= C)
And you know why? Because I assumed the expression < (like) is everything one likes is liked from the one is liked of
You wanted a logical explanation? I used Boolean Algebra relative.
I know it is tiring....just for fun


A=Eterosexual
B=Homosexual
C=Homosexual Supporter
D=Family

I will not reply to the rest..I am specific.

[Darth Wong]

@Darth Wong


Only in the end... do you understand

Aren't you supposed to turn back to the Light Side of the Force shortly after we hear those words?

You refer to the word "evidence" many times just to avoid a controversy. It is easy to deny an assumption or statement by the defense of this simple word. But it is an evidence itself of lack of arguments.

You must be joking. Pointing out that an accusation comes with no evidence attached is hardly avoidance of a controversy, or an invalid argument. You are making an accusation, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, you have to present evidence, otherwise your accusation is worthless.

Let me answer to you with a math paradox.

Suppose A leads to D. then
B does not lead to D
C likes D but also likes B
B Likes C and A as well
Can we say that C is not B?..not really
Can we say that B is not C...no
Then how can we say that C cannot lead to D ?We cant!

I interpret "like" <
"is" =
"Lead" =>

So

A=>D (We know that) but

A<D
C<D, C<B<C, B<A

so B<D (B likes D...not true)

So with the beginning assumption we have a false result....

I don't have to prove that homosexuality cannot cause problems. You have to prove that it does. People are innocent until proven guilty, and homosexuals are people.

And you know why? Because I assumed < =like that everything one likes is liked from the one is liked of
You wanted a logical explanation? I used Boolean Algebra relative.
I know it is tiring....just for fun


A=Eterosexual
B=Homosexual
C=Homosexual Supporter
D=Family

I will not reply to the rest..I am specific.

Your boolean algebra argument completely sidesteps the burden of proof, which is always upon the accuser.

[DARTH VADER]

Aren't you supposed to turn back to the Light Side of the Force shortly after we hear those words?

LOL...I did in the movie..what did I gain? :hmmm:


corrected some statements in the proof above...not that it interests someone here.

You must be joking. Pointing out that an accusation comes with no evidence attached is hardly avoidance of a controversy, or an invalid argument. You are making an accusation, and people are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, you have to present evidence, otherwise your accusation is worthless.

In a theoretical controvercy, proof is the argument that leads to assumptions and statements. In court of law..yes this is what you say.
I am not judging....I am speaking of my THEORY based on simple facts. (truths? who knows)

Then again you repeat yourself about evidence..proof ..proof...no argument ....ok .
Give me a logical example why Homosexuality CANNOT lead to what I say.
Otherwise you must seize your repeatitive lack of arguments.

[swabian]

Obviously, people who aren't seriously homophobic will be completely unconcerned with the question of whether Alexander was gay or bisexual. It has nothing to do with the reason he is called Alexander the Great. But for hardline homophobes, it's a huge problem because their dogma prevents them from respecting any homosexual.

this is a point however.

@Darth. Humanity will not degenerate or even die out due to homosexuality... please...