Feb 27 2013: If there are now "50 shades" of gayness, and it's a transient, evolving personal state of mind, as she says ... can iO or anyone else explain how the laws for marriage, adoption, and workplace protections can possibly accommodate such ambiguity and transition?
Feb 26 2013: Yes I think a lecture on technology is more important than anything that "LZ Granderson" or any other self-obsessed farcical activist has to say.
Sep 6 2012: I didn't say all the gays are rich white snobs. I'm saying that the fact that a rich white snob can self-declare as gay, and get automatic victim status and protections -- equating his shameless privileged self to someone who is visibly identifiable as a minority that has suffered generations of discrimination -- that's wrong.
And it's wrong that "progressiveness" now *primarily* means championing such privileged mean shameless deviant snobs.
It's a mockery of civil rights. A shameless farce.
We need to reject the LGBT activists at every turn.
[ Apparently *still* no charges for nor any meaningful news coverage on Larry Brinkin, by the way :
inquisitr.com/263218/gay-rights-activist-icon-larry-brinkin-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges/
]
Sep 6 2012: No, it's not the correct term, Peter; because it's not *sex*. You and the rest of society have been TRICKED into calling what they do "sex".
We can't let activists control our language; or we'll all start thinking like them (this is already well underway). As soon as we agree that perverse acts are "sex", then we have to treat it as normal, include it as part of "sex education", and all the rest of the problematic consequences.
Sep 5 2012: The *concept* of homosexuality as a real, objective trait is a disease in our society -- a contrived piece of liberal idiocy.
"Homosexual" would mean that there are people who reproduce with the same sex. No such thing !
No, they reproduce just like us. They are equal as individuals. But their relationships are NOT equal.
It's a practice; a very strange and subversive practice.
So definitely no to redefining marriage (marriage!!) ... and parents are correct to try to steer their children in a healthier direction.
Sep 5 2012: With fractional racial ancestry, you're still talking about an actual objective, inherited trait; which is of course deserving of respect.
How can people possibly confuse that with LGBT, which is a self-declared, self-identifying stance, for which (as I've said) any rich bored white guy can sign up.
Incredibly, they've manipulated society to the point where being progressive now MEANS accepting the radical LGBT agenda; and accepting all their strange practices as normal. I worked for a company with practically zero minorities, just lots of rich obnoxious vociferous LGBT types and their hags, and it considered itself "progressive". What a sham.
LGBT is a mockery of civil rights. Their activists are fascistic. Don't be tricked.
(see massresistance.org)
Sep 5 2012: I don't think that's well-defined in the PAST (as life was developing) ; but today it's fairly well defined ... in the sense that there are zero (or very few) ambiguous cases today.
At the point that you have metabolism (energy consumption) and self-same reproduction, I would say that's life.
... The future might bring new ambiguous cases, if technology creates a reproducing robot (not just self-assembling, but actually self-reproducing from raw materials in the environment).
Our scientists have much different notions of life, in that case.
Viruses are much simpler than bacteria; and completely inert until they injecting RNA into a cell. They have no independent means of reproduction. Some of them are not even *contiguous* (e.g. the Hepatitis B virus comes in 2 pieces).
Biologists can actually build some viruses in a lab from scratch. That's not remotely true for a cell (though Craig Venter has bootstrapped the DNA of a cell).
If you're going to categorize a virus as life, you might as well define a prion as life. A prion is just a single (mis-shaped) protein.
Sep 3 2012: Without religion, the world would have been in much greater conflict; and there would therefore have been less progress.
The notion that religion causes conflict should be passe. The great conflicts of the past 100 years were caused by secular movements: fascism and communism.
Religion *today* is a widespread underpinning of good will, which (in the West anyway) is compatible with scientific progress. We need to respect and value it.
Sep 3 2012: Peter, you've just made my point. You CAN'T replace "gays" with "blacks" in my statement because being black is a real, objective distinction. "Jews" maybe, but only if you're talking about religion, not race. The banal point is that gays are a self-identifying group, for which any rich elitist white guy can sign up. We need to reject their attempts to get race-like recognition, protections, and privileges.
Finally, being pretend-offended is not an argument (yes, replacing what I said with "black" actually IS more offensive).
TEDCred score: +1.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Talk: iO Tillett Wright: Fifty shades of gay
A reply on Talk: LZ Granderson: The myth of the gay agenda
A reply on Conversation: The "Gay" Cure
And it's wrong that "progressiveness" now *primarily* means championing such privileged mean shameless deviant snobs.
It's a mockery of civil rights. A shameless farce.
We need to reject the LGBT activists at every turn.
[ Apparently *still* no charges for nor any meaningful news coverage on Larry Brinkin, by the way :
inquisitr.com/263218/gay-rights-activist-icon-larry-brinkin-arrested-on-child-pornography-charges/
]
A reply on Conversation: The "Gay" Cure
We can't let activists control our language; or we'll all start thinking like them (this is already well underway). As soon as we agree that perverse acts are "sex", then we have to treat it as normal, include it as part of "sex education", and all the rest of the problematic consequences.
A reply on Conversation: The "Gay" Cure
"Homosexual" would mean that there are people who reproduce with the same sex. No such thing !
No, they reproduce just like us. They are equal as individuals. But their relationships are NOT equal.
It's a practice; a very strange and subversive practice.
So definitely no to redefining marriage (marriage!!) ... and parents are correct to try to steer their children in a healthier direction.
A reply on Conversation: The "Gay" Cure
How can people possibly confuse that with LGBT, which is a self-declared, self-identifying stance, for which (as I've said) any rich bored white guy can sign up.
Incredibly, they've manipulated society to the point where being progressive now MEANS accepting the radical LGBT agenda; and accepting all their strange practices as normal. I worked for a company with practically zero minorities, just lots of rich obnoxious vociferous LGBT types and their hags, and it considered itself "progressive". What a sham.
LGBT is a mockery of civil rights. Their activists are fascistic. Don't be tricked.
(see massresistance.org)
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
At the point that you have metabolism (energy consumption) and self-same reproduction, I would say that's life.
... The future might bring new ambiguous cases, if technology creates a reproducing robot (not just self-assembling, but actually self-reproducing from raw materials in the environment).
A reply on Conversation: A universal definition of life.
Our scientists have much different notions of life, in that case.
Viruses are much simpler than bacteria; and completely inert until they injecting RNA into a cell. They have no independent means of reproduction. Some of them are not even *contiguous* (e.g. the Hepatitis B virus comes in 2 pieces).
Biologists can actually build some viruses in a lab from scratch. That's not remotely true for a cell (though Craig Venter has bootstrapped the DNA of a cell).
If you're going to categorize a virus as life, you might as well define a prion as life. A prion is just a single (mis-shaped) protein.
A comment on Conversation: If Religion did not exist how far more advanced and how, much more tolerant of each other would we be?
The notion that religion causes conflict should be passe. The great conflicts of the past 100 years were caused by secular movements: fascism and communism.
Religion *today* is a widespread underpinning of good will, which (in the West anyway) is compatible with scientific progress. We need to respect and value it.
A reply on Conversation: The "Gay" Cure
Finally, being pretend-offended is not an argument (yes, replacing what I said with "black" actually IS more offensive).