tube party on june 1st?

[Roadkill]

We're we talking about drinking on the tube a few pages back?

Sorry, my fault. I seized the opportunity whilst it was there: I've been trying to draw untethered into this argument for weeks!

As I said on another thread, he's obviously trolling, but it's fun to dangle a hook or two occasionally and see what absurdities you can haul up from the depths.

 

[Maggot]

So are we having this tube party or what?

 

[untethered]

Not one single study, no. I could, however, point you to the research done by people such as Simon LeVay and the study a couple of years ago that suggested some pre-birth hormonal influences (BBC story). There's a useful summary of research findings on Levay's page here. Together, it adds up to a body of evidence you can't just bat aside as 'immaterial.'

I'll look at it. I have to go now so I'll only respond to this one point.

I have said that the origin of sexual orientation is immaterial, not that the evidence supporting any particular theory is necessarily unimportant to determining the question of origin.

Your presumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if an inclination is "natural" then it should not be suppressed and most definitely not prohibited by the state.

You seem to be advancing the common idea that if homosexual instincts are inborn then there is no reasonable grounds for objecting to homosexual behaviour. If you believe that this view is near-universally held then you are wrong, and if you believe that this principle is more generally observed then you are also wrong.

I have argued quite clearly that I disagree. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but if you could at least accept that for many people homosexual behaviour is considered to be wrong regardless of its origins or motivations then at least we can understand each other.

 

[meems]

what's all this sexual orientation bollocks? where do i sign up to drink beer on the tube? are we all going to have sex at this party as well? i'm so confused

 

[Maggot]

are we all going to have sex at this party as well? i'm so confused

no, we're just gonna watch you and bluey at it.

 

[meems]

oh right. we will charge, mind.

 

[Maggot]

Can we pay in drinks?

 

[Roadkill]

I'll look at it. I have to go now so I'll only respond to this one point.

I have said that the origin of sexual orientation is immaterial, not that the evidence supporting any particular theory is necessarily unimportant to determining the question of origin.

But the origin clearly isn't immaterial, is it?

Your presumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if an inclination is "natural" then it should not be suppressed and most definitely not prohibited by the state.

You seem to be advancing the common idea that if homosexual instincts are inborn then there is no reasonable grounds for objecting to homosexual behaviour. If you believe that this view is near-universally held then you are wrong, and if you believe that this principle is more generally observed then you are also wrong.

Provided an 'inclination' does no harm, then what grounds could there be for repressing it?

Yes, of course I'm advancing the argument that there are no reasonable grounds for objecting to 'homosexual behaviour.' I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious. I don't claim it to be a 'near-universally held' view, but it's certainly a very common one, and it's worth pointing out that beyond the lunatic fringe there has been no great groundswell of opinion against the equalisation of the age of consent, civil partnerships and sundry other 'anti-discrimination' laws passed in the last decade or so.

I have argued quite clearly that I disagree. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but if you could at least accept that for many people homosexual behaviour is considered to be wrong regardless of its origins or motivations then at least we can understand each other.

I understand your position perfectly well and I'm fully aware that there are some others who would agree with it, but it's nonsense. Sorry, there is no kinder way of putting it than that. It's counter-intuitive, self-contradictory, inhumane, irrational and immoral.

 

[Maggot]

Keep on topic you big puff!

 

[Roadkill]

Bloody breeders.

 

[Poi E]

If you're not going to build laws around morals, what?

Oh c'mon. You've got a few of the ten commandments enshrined in criminal statute. The rest is banal. Revenue gathering, keeping the streets clean, hopefully looking after the health of the populace. Morals? The cry of the indignant with time on their hands.

 

[Brainaddict]

Haven't read the thread so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710

 

[Crispy]

Haven't read the thread

I really wouldn't bother

so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710

Sounds like a giggle.

 

[Onket]

Haven't read the thread so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710

Any way of showing that for people who have not yet got drawn in to facebook?

 

[toblerone3]

So we all take our bikes onto the tube, drink lots of beer and then have sex with them. Is that the general idea?

 

[smokedout]

fucking middle class facebook tossers who havent got the guts to do it when its actually been made illegal

is all ive got to say

 

[mango5]

I got a bit lost when the thread went gay. And I don't have the facebook thingummajig so don'r know what's planned.

I agree with this...

also, i'm thinking that perhaps requesting people to, whatever else they do, bring soft drinks in alcohol containers. make a mockery of the whole thing, IYSWIM.

And I intend to drink water from a vodka bottle on public transport throughout the Summer.

 

[laptop]

this was suggested on the thread about that cunt johnson banning having a quiet beer. but we should do it. if you build it they will come, and all that.

how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?

Probably like this:

Nothing to do with me, guv. No, really.

 

[smokedout]

anyone going then?

 

[ajdown]

Front page about it on both freebie papers this evening, suggesting a 'heavy police presence' tomorrow night.

 

[smokedout]

yay, im there

anything for a chance of a ruck with the met

 

[Stobart Stopper]

what a load of yuppie wank.

 

[tippee]

Can't wait for one of these idiots to throw up on my train.
Out of service.
Straight to depot.
Goodnight Vienna.

 

[smokedout]

what a load of yuppie wank.

its all a bit chinless i grant you, but that doesnt mean it might not be a giggle

and if tsg come out in force then itll be interesting to see the middle classes get a taste of what the old bill are really like

 

[Onket]

Front page about it on both freebie papers this evening, suggesting a 'heavy police presence' tomorrow night.

In whichever one of them I looked in, it was in the 'What to do at the weekend section' too.

 

[Stobart Stopper]

its all a bit chinless i grant you, but that doesnt mean it might not be a giggle

and if tsg come out in force then itll be interesting to see the middle classes get a taste of what the old bill are really like

That is true, I suppose. I would love to get battered by some young, fit riot cop. And stamped on with his big boots.

 

[Cheesypoof]

some city boy tried to snog me on the tube the other nite!!!

he was rejected, obviously.

 

[Onket]

I would love to get battered by some young, fit riot cop.

Shame you can't tell if they are young & fit then, all covered up so you can only see their sheep eyes.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

So we all take our bikes onto the tube, drink lots of beer and then have sex with them. Is that the general idea?

why would you want to have sex with your bike?

 

[Maggot]

So are we still having the post-banning party on Sunday?