Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Trey Givens

Regulars
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trey Givens

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 09/03/1977

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewYork
  • Real Name
    Trey
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    University of Georgia

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Screaming Apathy
  • Website URL
    http://www.treygivens.com
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    treygivens

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New York City, NY
  1. The whole universal health care schtick is obviously not new and it's not new to the United States, either. Schwartzenegger's plan is different in some of the specifics but in essence it is the same and I know no one here doubts that it will will bear out the same results. If you're interested in a rather dramatic example of socialized medicine being attempted here in the US, check out the story of TennCare, which bankrupted the state of Tennessee and very nearly caused a violent uprising in the citizenry. Here's a link to a first-hand account of the whole ordeal: Tennessee: A Lesson for California.
  2. As for ending the conversation, why lock it if folks are willing to participate in it?
  3. I think we now need a definition of "physical incompatibility." No, not CapFo's illustrations of men and women, but what it means to be physically incompatible. Because by all of my experience and understanding, there is no such physical incompatibility, as the expression is used here, in homosexual sexual relationships. I don't think there is any way to prove that a homosexual relationship between ideal homosexual men is not ideal. (The very notion begs the question even.) This: is little more than an assertion made on the grounds of CapFo's own heterosexuality.
  4. I don't recall how that is described and unfortunately I'm at the office, so I will have to research that when I get back to my library... unless you have a quote handy!
  5. Oh yes! I've seen that before. I believe Quent Cordair has some of his stuff. Check out Sam Axton's Excelsior and you see what I mean. He actually also has some beautiful sculptures of females, too. Update: No, this is where I saw wilkinson: Wilkinson But does this really help us? Because I know a beautiful woman when I see one and I appreciate that she is beautiful, but it's not the same.
  6. That's a bit personal, doncha think? And in basic terms that's what I just did.
  7. No, no. I took it into account. MY comment was to say that in the same way you were insulting me from the lofty perch of your good judgment, I was doing the same to you, only I held my tongue because trading insults isn't good use of my time. And you said you reserve the right to reissue your judgment on me and my response is to say that I reserve the same. That's all. That's why I was pleased by your statement, because of course you do. I'm really not sure how to answer this, though. It makes sense to me to be attracted to men. The male form is strength and vitality to me. I appreciate the directness and power of male beauty as opposed to the grace and litheness, which connotes nurturing and restfulness that I associate with female beauty. I don't think that brings us any closer, though, because I can see why either one is attractive. How would you respond to being asked why you're attracted to women?
  8. We are now on the same page with that. I was telling this forum many, many, many posts ago that we couldn't comment on THAT part of the issue. My mistake was that I accepted CapFo's argument which I see now needs greater exploration. I think that's reasonable, too.
  9. Hahahaaa... Same to you! That's all I've ever been talking about. The only reason YOUR gender would be important would be for our purposes of identifying you as a homosexual or heterosexual, not in your choosing/not-choosing thereof. Even the folks who are vehement about there being biological origins to homosexuality do hold that your gender is relevent to you in choosing a mate. In fact, that's counter to their own claim in the first place. Oh, but I wanted to comment on this: This varies, really. Don't you think? Aren't there different reasons one may be attracted to the female form? Also, there are all kinds of shapes and sizes of people and the "look" you may enjoy varies from that which others enjoy at least that much. I'm just not sure how to start addressing that question without talking about what is my personal preference, which I DO think is a result of my volitionally held values. Ideas?
  10. Oh, Daniel! This is no time for half-measures! heh heh heh... Actually, if you review my posts MUCH earlier in the conversation, I made it clear that I do not know what the origin of sexuality is but that scientific evidence available casts some doubts on this presumption that the gender of the object of your desire (just so we're clear) is not completely a matter of volition. (I also grant some skepticism to this evidence as well given how politically charged the subject of homosexuality is.) I think it was CapFo who argued the "Either sexuality is biological (and it's not) or homosexuality is immoral" dichotomy. He'll have to jump in here if I say it wrong, but I believe the argument was something like this: If all the characteristics of his lover including gender are a matter of man's volition, then implicit in the fact that men and women are biologically compatible, heterosexuality must be the result of properly held values. I'm not all that clear on how that argument really holds, but neither can I readily state the problem. But it looks to me like we're asking ourselves if that's really true or not. So, I'm interested in hear what is to be said on that.
  11. I wonder why it is that infants respond positively to images of symmetrical faces and negatively to asymmetrical faces without regard to culture, race, or experience. What are your thoughts, Richard_Halley?
  12. And Lucent, there is more to being male than having a penis. Most homosexuals *I* know are attracted to members of their gender on the physical level only for being members of their gender. I have met women who have the values I admire in a potential lover, but I'm not attracted to them because they are women.
  13. That's exactly what I've been saying, daniel. Thank you for also recognizing this aspect of reality. I don't see any basis for this statement.You actually compared sexual attraction to aesthetic values, which leads me to conclude that you have recognized the obvious: sexual attraction is the result of many layers of integrated values. I'm just saying that there are so many layers to it and so deeply rooted in a person's psyche that most people probably aren't able to trace every single value to its point of origin. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. No, that's not at all what I'm implying. I'm stating that gender is a relevant consideration when choosing a mate. When you identify yourself or anyone as X-sexual, you identify their gender and also the gender of their mate. I'm sure you know what homosexual and heterosexual mean, so I won't go into defining which groups choose which people of which gender. Hm. Ok. I'm interested in hearing about that. Are you seriously saying that what gender someone is bears no importance to you as to whether or not you would consider them for romance? D'OH! I see what you're saying and you've got me wrong. I'm not saying that YOUR gender matters in picking a love. I'm saying that the gender of the object of your affection matter to you.
  14. So, is there ever an announcement when someone is banned? I'm asking because of that huesdens person who was saying all the crazycrazy on lots of threads. I'm assuming someone unwelcomed him.
×
×
  • Create New...